Subject: RE: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation to Proposed Standard

From: Gerry Sancataldo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 09:24:27 +1000

hmm,

Fax broadcasts are traditionally done to a set group of recipients (e.g. a
companies interstate offices) as traditional fax based devices require these
destinations to be pre-programmed in the device phonebook, these phone books
entries in many cases can be set up with the recipient capabilities also
defined for that individual recipient (e.g. resolution, compression , page
size  etc).

Let's not forget that broadcasting is loosing popularity as mail merge to
network fax / email provides more effective broadcasting due to the ability
to address a specific individual as a recipient.

I am currently surveying a number of sites (Australian) that are currently
using Internet Fax and preliminary data indicates that over 98% of traffic
is to a single recipient.

However, I do acknowledge that this may not be the case in other countries
or in the future as Internet fax capable devices become more affordable.

Gerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert A. Rosenberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, 5 July 2002 4:09 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation
to Proposed Standard

At 09:31 +1000 on 07/04/2002, Gerry Sancataldo wrote about RE: Last
Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negot:

>Hi all,
>
>I am involved in the technical support/ training area for fax and
>internet fax devices and would just like to add that typically a
>message/transaction is directed to one recipient only.
>
>(I make no judgement as to other services that may piggyback on SMTP
>and if they will typically include multiple recipients).
>
>As the number of Multi-function devices supporting Internet fax move
>to an increasing number of options (colour copiers etc supporting
>Internet fax) I suspect that the onus should be on the recipient
>client to confirm its capabilities, not the server.
>
>I make no judgement as to other services that may piggyback on SMTP
>and if they will typically include multiple recipients.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Gerry

I think you might be looking at the issue from a inaccurate
prospective. What is being attempted is to port the "Fax Broadcast"
Scenario to delivering the Fax via the Internet as opposed to POTS.
In the POTS Broadcast method, each copy is a separate connection and
thus any reformatting is done due to the Connect Handshake
Capabilities exchange. This tailoring capability needs to be
preserved. If you feel (or have some data to support) that only an
insignificant number of the total Fax Volume are Broadcast
(multi-addressed) Faxes, then that might support your initial
statement.

---

From: "Robert A. Rosenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 12:32:54 -0400

At 09:24 +1000 on 07/05/2002, Gerry Sancataldo wrote about RE: Last
Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negot:

>I am currently surveying a number of sites (Australian) that are
>currently using Internet Fax and preliminary data indicates that
>over 98% of traffic is to a single recipient.

While not attempting to attack your methodology, limiting the
"universe" to those using Internet Fax raises in my mind the
possibility/probability of getting an inaccurate view due to a number
of considerations.

As to your comment about "Pre Build Broadcast Lists" (which I did not
quote), again you are restricting your universe. I've seen some types
of broadcasts (such as some implementations of Fax-On-Demand) where
the response is delayed for "Batch Processing." In that case the
Broadcast list (none of whose numbers are known to the sender prior
to the request) is dynamically build based on the requests and then
sorted to group all the Faxes to the same Phone Number into one
transmission (to make maximum usage of the connection) which only
occurs on a scheduled basis.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:05:03 +0100 (BST)

> >over 98% of traffic is to a single recipient.

Is Internet Fax Spam a significant problem yet?

L.

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[email-masked]>