John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
... including my usual problem of not liking to have to be online
to read and reply to messages
Evidently there is something in the draft which led John K to
believe this problem would arise. That was not our intention, and
it would help to point out the text in question so we can fix it.
In the normal case, the TBR URI would be retrieved by a well-
connected MTA on the receiver's Administrative Management Domain,
and the (reconstructed) email would be forwarded as a non-TBR
message to the recipient's message store.
There is text, about an error condition where a TBR MTA needs
to pass a TBR mesage to a non-TBR MTA, which allowed for an error
notification to go forward: this text was not well-thought-out
and needs to be fixed -- but this assuredly is not a normal case.
But, in fairness to the proposal, the general idea has one
advantage. If one is concerned about source / originator
identity and authentication, having to make a real-time direct
connection back to the sender's repository permits thinking
about much stronger methods than, e.g., header signatures.
Kind words, John. Thank you.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>