RE: Response modification

I am sorry, I really have a problem following all this discussion and I 
feel I have no idea of what is really discussed.

My understanding was that:

- we make a list of cases. 
http://www.martin-stecher.de/opes/smtpusecases.html and keep adding to it 
each case we would indentify as not covered
- we would discuss the best OPES architecture able to address them
- in testing the propositions against each of these cases.

I expected that in this process we would discover new services we could 
enable this way, and at the same time to simplify the architecture to be used.

Today I feel (but I may be wrong) that we are sorting and filtering case 
concepts (not real cases) along sorting and filtering concept corresponding 
to a solution approach. I do not object that this may not be right and 
brillant, but I am lost and cannot commit.

Now, I must confess that I am not interested in SMTP as such. I am 
interested in real store and forward cases serviced by OPES over real life 
MTAs, SMTP being part of their support, may be this is why I am 
lost?  Also, I am definitly interested in operational, legal local 
constraints, as something a solution must support (and may be should we 
list them all, as Hector is probably not the only one having some needs in 
that area ? I listed at least one myself [to make sure mail would never 
cross machines of a given domain/country]. But this should not be used to 
limitate the architectural specifications.

If I am out of context, I apologize.
jfc


At 21:09 22/01/2005, Martin Stecher wrote:


> >
> >
> > OPES is supposed to enable new services.
>
>Absolutely.
>
> >
> > The call-forward wouldn't have been a hack if it had been done as
> > part of an OPES service, using the same architectural model that
> > we used for HTTP.
>
>I fully agree.
>
> > Further, we rule out a large number of useful
> > identity-based services by eliminating the ability to do
> > response modification.
>
>Here I disagree.
>
>Tonny describes again a use case that we've listed already last year.
>See sample 2-2 on http://www.martin-stecher.de/opes/smtpusecases.html
>No doubt that it is a very important one.
>This and other examples of group 2 are the "useful identity-based services"
>you are referring to, aren't they?
>And these are all request satisfaction examples, not response modification.
>
>Again: Response modification is only useful if the callout service makes
>use of the original response data, which in SMTP is the SMTP reply.
>
>The only service I can think of, that does this, is a logging service.
>Is that one strong enough to have response modification in the SMTP 
>deployment?
>Or can you please describe another important service that makes use of
>the response and modifies it?
>
>Regards
>Martin