IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-08.txt

John C Klensin <john+smtp@jck.com> Tue, 12 August 2003 17:33 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7CHXuqt091408 for <ietf-smtp-bks@above.proper.com>; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:33:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7CHXuaT091407 for ietf-smtp-bks; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7CHXtqt091401; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:33:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from john+smtp@jck.com)
Received: from [209.187.148.215] (helo=scan.jck.com) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 19md1p-00059S-00; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:33:49 -0500
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:33:49 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john+smtp@jck.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
cc: "ietf-smtp@imc.org" <ietf-smtp@imc.org>, "ietf-fax@imc.org" <ietf-fax@imc.org>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-08.txt
Message-ID: <17504990.1060695229@scan.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <73497970593.20030812090707@brandenburg.com>
References: <20030626.085226.01368429.tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp> <20030726003633.4be48d49.moore@cs.utk.edu> <73497970593.20030812090707@brandenburg.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0b5 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

--On Tuesday, 12 August, 2003 09:07 -0700 Dave Crocker 
<dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> Right now, Internet mail does not permit conversions to be
> done anywhere in the relay chain. I suggest we try to support
> the simple scenario -- which has already turned out to be far
> more complex than we first thought necessary -- before trying
> to solve the general case, especially since we have no
> demonstrated need for it.

Dave,

Either I misunderstand the assertion above, or it is incorrect. 
ESTMP options --especially 8BITMIME-- quite explicitly permit 
(indeed, require, if the message cannot be forwarded in 8bit 
form and is not to be bounced) conversions in the relay chain. 
Whether that is actually material to "conneg", or to the 
discussion you and Keith are having, is another matter, but we 
certainly do permit such conversions.

regards,
   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email