headers
Roger Fajman | 1 Dec 1996 04:29
Picon

Re: subaddressing

> The main reason for NOT putting the subaddress or forwarding address
> as part of the email address is that some end-user mail systems don't
> support it. In the cases where the recipient's mail system doesn't
> support compound addressee names, though, it is usually possible to
> assign a separate email mailbox for the fax address. In this case, the
> primary arguments are financial: it might cost more to have a separate
> email address for your fax machine as for you.

I think we are thinking of two different situations.  The above suggests
to me that you are thinking of the receipient of faxes wanting to
get them in email.  I am thinking of someone sending a fax via
email to a fax machine.  An email-to-fax gateway may be used to
send faxes to a large number of fax numbers, with numbers coming
into and going out of use on a daily basis.  Having to set up a
mailbox for each fax number that you want to send to would be an
unacceptable administrative burden.

This is not an unusual application.  There are several companies that
sell such email-to-fax gateway products today.  It's just that there
is no standard way of sending faxes in email.

Of course, email-to-fax gateways are not the only application, but
they are one that should be considered.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Roger Fajman | 1 Dec 1996 04:40
Picon

Re: subaddressing

> Rojer Fajman suggested (privately)
>
> # .. I think existing usage is more the other way around, as in
> #   Roger_Fajman%480-6241 <at> fax.nih.gov
>
> Sounds like a good correction. For "Internet fax", though, if we're
> going to suggest a way of munging a phone number onto an email
> address, shouldn't we recommend using a fully qualified international
> number?   masinter%1-415-812-4333#123 <at> parc.xerox.com
>
> Larry

That does increase the complexity of the system quite a bit.  The
dialing rules for various telephone systems can be very complex.
Ours, for example, has different rules for dialing numbers on
the switch, local calls within our area code, local calls outside
our area code (yes, it is possible), long distance calls within
the US, and international calls (even if the country code is 1).
So a fax gateway would have to have a complicated set of rules
to be able to take fully qualified international numbers and
translate them to what actually has to be dialed.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Roger Fajman | 1 Dec 1996 04:45
Picon

Re: subaddressing

> If you "buy into" the arguments above, then I will assert that the idea of
> putting subaddresses into email mailing lists is somewhat of a non-issue,
> since if these networks were advanced enough to have a fax server which
> supports subaddresses, then I can almost guarantee that they already have
> an email address for each user, and there is no need to incorporate the
> subaddress into the address.

Not true for outgoing messages, as described in a message sent
a few minutes ago.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Larry Masinter | 1 Dec 1996 19:06
Picon
Favicon

Re: subaddressing

# So a fax gateway would have to have a complicated set of rules
# to be able to take fully qualified international numbers and
# translate them to what actually has to be dialed.

well, that's partly what we're up to anyway, isn't it? These days,
this kind of "oh, you're dialing sweden from spain" seems to be built
into standard telephony software anyway, and the routing of local
phone systems seems subject to change.

Larry
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dave Crocker | 2 Dec 1996 05:01

Agenda for IETF-FAX BOF/WG

Folks,

	(Larry Masinter sent in the only comment on my proposed agenda.
I've compressed the heck out of what *I* listed and left most of the time
for what *he* suggested.  I've removed his repeated "who will do the work"
items from each section, but it will be ever present in our discussions.)

	Here's the "final" agenda for the IETF-FAX meeting, for Friday, 13
December, 9am-11.

	A close reading will show an entire 10 minutes unaccounted for.
That's intentional.  It does NOT mean that the listed times will be allowed
to slip (unless those present show a strong and immediate rough consensus
to alter the times, of course.)  Because the slots are many and short,
please come to the meeting with your crispness-and-efficiency hats on.

	See you next week!

5	Review of charter
	   This is educational rather than for refinement, since the
	   charter has already been submitted to the IESG for approval.

5	Discussion of work plan
	   How to proceed productively.

10	Proposals
	   Summaries of specific suggested solutions.

15 	Document image formats
	   What are the requirements?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Raymond Lutz | 2 Dec 1996 15:47
Favicon

Re: subaddressing


At 10:45 PM 11/30/96 EST, Roger Fajman wrote:
>> If you "buy into" the arguments above, then I will assert that the idea of
>> putting subaddresses into email mailing lists is somewhat of a non-issue,
>> since if these networks were advanced enough to have a fax server which
>> supports subaddresses, then I can almost guarantee that they already have
>> an email address for each user, and there is no need to incorporate the
>> subaddress into the address.
>
>Not true for outgoing messages, as described in a message sent
>a few minutes ago.
>
I didn't see this particular issue addressed. I understand your desire to
have the telephone number. From a internet-->fax gateway's standpoint, it
doesn't matter if the phone number is added to the address in-line or as
another MIME header component. Why do you feel subaddresses are required
for the internet-->fax gateway's use? If you are sending to a g3 fax
terminal, it probably won't use the subaddress. If you are sending to a LAN
fax server, that LAN is probably already connected to the internet somehow,
and the recipient will be able to receive the "fax" content as an email
attachment directly.
-Raymond
>

/***********************************************************************
** Raymond Lutz                             Voice: 619-447-3246
** Director R & D, Cognisys, Inc.           Fax:   619-447-6872 
** MFPA EC Chair                            MFPA:  1-800-603-MFPA
** 1010 Old Chase Ave., Suite B             EMail: raylutz <at> cognisys.com
** El Cajon (San Diego Co.), CA 92020 USA
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Raymond Lutz | 2 Dec 1996 15:47
Favicon

Re: Agenda for IETF-FAX BOF/WG

I don't think your agenda schedule is realistic. In 10 or 15 minutes, the
most that you can probably hope to do for each topic is to gain consensus
on the main issues, perhaps getting agreement that we have listed the
topics correctly. So, I don't agree that it will be feasible to deal with
the subject matter in this short time. Therefore, I suggest that we cast
these discussions toward addressing the original items, i.e. work plan,
charter, etc. So the items will be discussed to the point that we know what
sort of topics needs to be discussed and perhaps how the work will be
progressed.
I will be at the meeting.
-Raymond 

At 08:01 PM 12/1/96 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Folks,
>
>	(Larry Masinter sent in the only comment on my proposed agenda.
>I've compressed the heck out of what *I* listed and left most of the time
>for what *he* suggested.  I've removed his repeated "who will do the work"
>items from each section, but it will be ever present in our discussions.)
>
>	Here's the "final" agenda for the IETF-FAX meeting, for Friday, 13
>December, 9am-11.
>
>	A close reading will show an entire 10 minutes unaccounted for.
>That's intentional.  It does NOT mean that the listed times will be allowed
>to slip (unless those present show a strong and immediate rough consensus
>to alter the times, of course.)  Because the slots are many and short,
>please come to the meeting with your crispness-and-efficiency hats on.
>
>	See you next week!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Robert McComiskie | 2 Dec 1996 16:29
Favicon

Has IETF-FAX gone silent?

     The last email message I received from ietf-fax was dated 11/25. I 
     can't believe there has been no traffic.

     Someone please respond.

     Thanks,

     Bob.

/********************************************************************* 
** Bob McComiskie                           Voice: 617-229-7021     ** 
** Senior Product Manager                   Fax:   617-229-7120     ** 
** Xionics Document Technologies, Inc.                              ** 
** 70 Blanchard Road                       rmccomiskie <at> xionics.com  ** 
** Burlington, MA 01803 USA                http://www.xionics.com   ** 
*********************************************************************/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Richard Shockey | 2 Dec 1996 19:50
Picon

Re: Fax and IMAP4


I have had some questions in my mind how the Content-Type for Fax would
integrate into the new IMAP4 mail clients that are coming on stream pretty
rapidly. In particular I was interested in how one could retrieve just the
first page of the fax during a IMAP4 session. This could be a very valuable
feature.

Since I am pretty ingorant of the issues involved I took the liberty of
contacting some folks at the University of Washington PINE development
group who have the most developed IMAP4 client out there.

The reply follows.

#############################################

>> 	I'm not sure if you may be the right person to start with but I have seen
>> some posting you have made on comp.mail.mime so I thought I'd begin with
you.
>> 
>
>The best place to ask about IMAP4-related questions is the
>imap <at> cac.washington.edu mailing list.   
>
>> 	There is a movement by a fairly organized group to go the the IETF for a
>> charter to standardize FAX type messages into the E-Mail model. [see
>> attached draft charter]. There are other groups that are also working on
>> Voice Mail Content-Types as well [VPIM - Voice Profile for Internet Mail].
>> 
>> 	One of the serious questions we have had is what is the most appropriate
>> Content-Type for Fax [tiff 6.0 is being strongly considered] that would
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Larry Masinter | 3 Dec 1996 02:18
Picon
Favicon

Re: Agenda for IETF-FAX BOF/WG

# 					In 10 or 15 minutes, the
# most that you can probably hope to do for each topic is to gain consensus
# on the main issues, perhaps getting agreement that we have listed the
# topics correctly.

Make sure everyone understands what the topic _IS_, and make sure we
have agreement that at least some people think we need to work on the
topic.

# So, I don't agree that it will be feasible to deal with
# the subject matter in this short time.

I didn't think we were going to deal with any subjects, just that we'd
reach a common understanding of the nature of the subject.

# Therefore, I suggest that we cast these discussions toward addressing
# the original items, i.e. work plan, charter, etc.

That's what each of the items is attempting to do in a detailed
way: what is our work plan for 'document image formats', what is our
work plan for 'security', what is our work plan for 'reciept
notification', what is our work plan for 'addressing and routing', and
how do we intend to coordinate with other groups.

Larry
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane