At 04:40 PM 7/3/2002 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
CONNEG appears at its root to be an attempt to avoid the "wasted"
bandwidth and processing time/effort to create a M-P/A MIME message most
of whose content the Recipient is going to ignore after receipt. It also
removes the requirement that the Recipient is even capable of parsing a
M-P/A MIME message to locate the "correct" version of FAX which it can
understand/process.
Hmmm. As I recall, the specification was not developed with this goal in
mind. However I think that you are pointing out a trade-off in the use of
ESMTP/CONNECT and Multipart/Alternative that is largely correct.
(I say largely rather than completely because there are some feature
combinations that define so many combinatorials, they could not be
considered for M/A but are straightforward for CONNEG.)
Still, you do raise an interesting perspective.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave(_at_)tribalwise(_dot_)com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850