Subject: Re: Distinguishing IFax from email - rephrased question

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:39:17 +0100

At 09:47 AM 9/7/98 +0100, Brian Stafford wrote:
>... but as this example and the aliasing problem make clear, even adding a
>prefix to a regular mailbox address does not make the intent of the sender
>*explicit*.

I think this is the key.

Messages serve communication "roles".  These roles (and their implications)
are often implicit, rather than explicit, such as for the legal import of a
fax.

So, there well might be utility in have a "message role" label.  This would
be different from something at the level of a mime attachment.  It would
label the entire message, in terms of its human, organization, etc. purpose.

That said, I think this is of broader interest/concern than just the fax
working group.

Further, we haven't seen much interest in this kind of enhancement of the
service, yet.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1(408)246 8253
<mailto:[email-masked]>                        675 Spruce Drive
                                                  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                         Tel: +60(19)3299 445
                                               Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
Fax: +1(408)246 8253                     Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA