I missed the discussion due to a long weekend however...
Brian Trenbeath wrote:
Outlook 98 was never meant to even try to be compliant with the MDN RFC. In
fact, we
consider it an unfortunate bug that Outlook 98 is even attempting to
understand these
headers as it is very obviously not compliant.
Outlook 2k, the next release of Outlook has fixed this bug, and is compliant
with the
RFC. We no longer send out TNEF'ed receipts in response to the MDN headers.
In fact,
the beta of Outlook 2k that recently was released is compliant to this RFC
and has
fixed this bug.
Good. However, does that mean that the bug in Outlook 98 will remain
and continue to be shipped until O2k is released. If that is the case
there will be a large installed base of non conformant clients throwing
these TNEF'd receipts onto the internet.
Ned Freed wrote:
Alas, it looks like people are aren't following the rules laid down
in the RFC, which makes makes this mechanism an accident waiting to
happen, just like the ad-hoc things that preceeded it.
Is there a common mistake/misinterpretation in vendors' implementations
of the RFC? I expect the Return-Path/DNT address match is a common one.
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 11/23/98 at 3:58 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
sounds like a good reason to declare the whole thing Experimental,
or maybe Historic...
Not to me. Just because people can screw it up does not mean that
most will. We have massive experience with people screwing up SMTP,
MIME, etc. The fact that we have plenty of good implementations means
that we shouldn't be moving things to Experimental or Historic; to do
so would just be reactionary.
Some of us are doing this right.
I agree. It is a valuable extension and (hopefully) many of us are
doing it correctly. In addition it gives a far better way for X.400 to
implement (N)RN in gateways as opposed to using RNR comments inside
recipient header which are not understood by Internet clients.
If the Outlook 98 buggy version continues to be shipped until O2k then
it appears this may have quite an effect on the standards review process
simply as a result of the installed base.
Lastly,
To: "Keith Moore" <keithmo(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
Are there two KM?
Rgds
--
Antony Bowesman
adb(_at_)to(_dot_)sel(_dot_)fujitsu(_dot_)co(_dot_)jp