Subject: Re: draft-ietf-fax-eifax-05.txt

From: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 8:44:35 -0700

>>How about this for the second paragraph:
>>
>>   The recipient MUST NOT use the RFC822 "To:" field to determine
>>   the ultimate destination mailbox or addressee, and SHOULD NOT use 
>>   other RFC822 or MIME fields for making such determinations.
>
>My initial reaction is that these should be at the same requirement level.
>But I suppose that there may be special case headers that justify the
>second being slightly weaker (like that header that POP inserts?).

It would permit a device to make 'routing' decisions based on the
MIME content-type (for example), but prohibits using the To: field
for any routing at all.

-Dan Wing

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 10:27:57 -0700 (PDT)

> MIME content-type (for example), but prohibits using the To: field

If that's the case then I would suggest making this a lot more specific. How
about:

   The recipient MUST NOT use RFC822 "To:" fields, "Cc:" fields,
   "Bcc:" fields, or any other fields containing header recipient
   information to determine the ultimate destination mailbox or
   addressee, and SHOULD NOT use other RFC822 or MIME fields for
   making such determinations.

I believe this closes the door tight on using inherently unreliable header
recipient information, but leaves it open slightly for using MIME information
or envelope information that has been transferred to the header during, say,
final delivery.

				Ned