ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Keywords for "SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation"

2002-07-17 19:51:49

At 01:39 -0700 on 07/15/2002, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote about Re: Keywords for "SMTP Service Extension for Content Ne:

 > Frankly the method of returning capabilities in a bounce
 message seems more effective and more reliable because it doesn't rely on
 intermedaries.

The problem I see with depending on notifications is another one of those
"looks good on paper" things: For whatever reason, support for sophisticated
handling of notifications has been slow to materialize in user agents.

Agreed. OTOH, since the client is going to have to handle CONNEG in any case, adding a notification parser to the mix as part of the CONNEG implementation is a different issue since it is not adding the notification parser to existent support but adding new support that INCLUDES a notification parser as part of its implementation requirements. Note that I am not advocating or rejecting a notification parser solution but only pointing out what I perceive as a fallacy in your analysis of the issue.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>