Subject: RE: REVISED draft-ietf-fax-eifax-08.txt

From: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 8:47:49 -0800

>What I'm thinking of is some text like: 
>
>"In the event that a fax image attachment is received that is not
>processible and the sender is known to the recipient, the recipient or
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>associated MTA may wish to use the mechanism defined in 3.3 to inform the
>sender of its capabilities. "   
>
>Your thoughts?  

I believe wording like that is already present in EIFAX, is it not?

I do have some concerns with the phrase marked with "^", above,
though (use a fixed-width font to view this message): "and the sender 
is known to the recipient" -- I don't know how a recipient would
"know" a sender.  For example, I've never met about 60% of the people
I exchange email with, even internal to Cisco.  Do I "know" them ?

>>What if the recipient reads only German?  Or Japanese?  Or -- one of the
>>worst cases -- can't read my handwriting, can't decode the message at
>>all and struggles for hours and hours trying to find an appropriate
>>image viewer ??
>>
>My point is that unless an image/tiff file is sent, the recipient will have
>no idea that we are even interested in Internet fax and a list of
>associated capabilities.   So, if they can't process the message and the
>sender is known to them, it would be useful to send back the "not
>processible" message via DSN or MDN (as has been specified) AND the list of
>capabilities.   For security reasons, I don't think we can go any further
>than that using this (DSN/MDN) approach.   

Right, and for implementation reasons we cannot expect existing 
mailers to generate a 'failed to process' MDN -- because that simply
doesn't happen with any MUAs today.

>>If we want to send an image/tiff, how is an offramp, or an MUA, or an
>>ifax black box, supposed to know it isn't supposed to process the
>>message?
>>
>Unless a method is invented, they don't (yet)!  I see that GK has a thought
>about this.   

Yep.  Good idea, too, I think.

However, do we want to hold up -eifax- to flesh this out?  Maybe we 
can flesh it out quickly.

-Dan Wing

---

From: James Rafferty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:06:41 -0500

>>processible and the sender is known to the recipient, the recipient or
Given Ned Freed's analysis, it sounds like this will take a while to work
out and need buyin that goes beyond this WG (i.e. it has architectural
implications) .  

So, unless there is a quick "magic bullet" on this, I think it would be
among the things to address (after -eifax) related to DSN/MDN extensions
that go further to 
handle "processibility" of attachments in a way that is more meaningful for
Internet fax (e.g. an attachment has been printed or displayed).   

James

*------------------------------------------------*
James Rafferty			
President, Human Communications 	
12 Kevin Drive			
Danbury, CT  06811-2901		
USA					
Voice/Fax:  +1-203-746-4367
Email:  [email-masked]
	 [email-masked]

HC Web Site:  http://www.humancomm.com  
*---------------------------------------------------