Subject: RE: Decode-error case in Eifax(RFC2532)

From: Geoff <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:04:12 -0400

Hiroshi-san,
You wrote..

My question:
>> > Another question for the POP3 or IMAP4 type terminal.
>> > When it receives, decodes and "prints"(normal case of box type),
>> > should it respond with "dispatched", not "displayed", not 
>> > "processed" ?

-- quote of RFC2298 --
   "dispatched"   The message has been sent somewhere in some manner
                             (e.g., printed, faxed, forwarded) without
                              necessarily having been previously
                              displayed to the user.  The user may or
                              may not see the message later.

   "processed"    The message has been processed in some manner (i.e.,
                              by some sort of rules or server) without
                              being displayed to the user.  The user may
                              or may not see the message later, or there
                              may not even be a human user associated
                              with the mailbox.
-- end of quote --

I think "dispatched" is better than "processed".
Do you agree with me ?

I have doubts over this one. 

If you adhere strictly to the wording of the RFC 'dispatched' is certainly more correct.
But 'dispatched' is ambiguous. 
If your box gets more clever over time and learns to forward or relay, you will still have to respond 'dispatched', to indicate 'success', but the relay operation may in fact have failed, so the sender receives 'success' when it/he/she should receive ' not success'

If you respond 'processed' the meaning at first appears correct, but again, a close examination of the wording of the RFC reveals 'process' should not be used.

Personaly I favour 'displayed'. This means 'shown to the recipient'. In the case of a box which automaticaly prints, this may be interpreted as 'displaying' and it provides an un-ambiguous response to the sender.

Geoff

---

From: Hiroshi Tamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:21:00 +0900

Geoff-san,
konnichiwa(nearly equal "Hello")

<snip>

>> Personaly I favour 'displayed'. This means 'shown to the recipient'. In the case of a box which automaticaly prints, this may be interpreted as 'displaying' and it provides an un-ambiguous respons…

I'm not a native in English. I'm sorry I don't understand
your meaning exactly.

-- quote of RFC2298[MDN] --
   "displayed"    The message has been displayed by the UA to someone
                              reading the recipient's mailbox.  There is
                              no guarantee that the content has been
                              read or understood.
-- end of quote --

Even in this definition, "displayed" is the suitable
disposition-type ?, Geoff-san.

Current RFCs for Eifax are OK for me, but there seem to be
some ambiguous points for box-type Eifax,
although there may not be ones for E-Mail Eifax software.

Regards,

--
Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
Mail: [email-masked]
Tel: +81-462-28-7459  Fax: +81-462-28-7500 (SUB/F-code 5727)