Hi all,
I have two comments to the draft in subject.
In my personal opinion there is a weakness in the notification of problems
occurring at the Incoming point.
With the only exception of the "Virus detection notification", there is no
message
of "not taken in charge" to the sender PEC system (could it be
better called CEM system? PEC is the acronim of the Italian original name.).
Consequently the user will receive Timeout delivery error notification(s) with
no info
about the reason why the mail has not been delivered.
Yust to make an example: the user sends a big message which is accepted
by his PEC system but the destination PEC system imposed a different limit
for the message size and it rejects the message. There is no PEC message to
kick this "non acceptance" back to the origin.
A proposal could be to have a sort of "not taken in charge notification"
message,
with the "Virus detection notification" as one possible case.
Similar behaviour could be obtained at the delivery point but, as the previous
example,
the PEC system should not be happy to elaborate a message, outside the SLA
rules, any
longer.
A more general comment is about the use of italian word throughout the draft.
It could be better to use the translation of Appendix A and obtain a document
in full english. It will improve the readability of the document which is now
intended
for international readers.
Regards,
Pietro Romanazzi