ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Understanding response protocols

2004-09-20 09:12:27

In <414B8EDD(_dot_)3090605(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly 
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:

Charles Lindsey wrote:

It is quite clear to me that _any_solution to the problems we are
dicussing will require changes to MUAs before it becomes effective. MFT is
a nice solution on the face of it, but requires the most change to
existing MUAs.

And MTAs.

Why MTAs? MSAs perhaps.

Mail-Copies-To would he easier to introduce, but it does
not do such a good job.

Not easier -- it has the same problems and requires MUA and MTA
changes.

What MTA support?

Looks like we have to choose some least-harmful
alternative. Reply-To is what we have at the moment, and it is clearly not
working.

It works fine for me...

But not for anybody else, apparently.

It is well enough defined for us to understand what it would entail.

Where's the ABNF? Where's the definition of how the field is handled
w.r.t. message fragmentation and reassembly?  Where's the discussion
w.r.t. interaction with Reply-To in RFC 2822?  Where's the discussion
about automatic responses in RFC 3834?

We are discussing a suggestion that it might be introduced as a solution
to the problem. You do not need ABNF and a full draft (though they would
be required eventually). But, if you insist, that you may consult
ftp://ftp.dsv.su.se/users/jpalme/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00b.txt.
Oddly, that draft does not actually specify any ABNF, but you may assume
it intended syntax similar to the Reply-To field in RFC 2822.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, 
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5