Subject: [lemonade] Question 3: is future delivery interaction with DSN necessary

From: "Greg White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:24:25 -0500

The following is clipped from the current version of the future delivery
draft:

<excerpt>

4.2.2 MSA interaction with DSN

   1) If an MSA generates a DSN for a message that includes a Future
      Delivery request, the MSA MUST include an Arrival-Date: field in
      the machine-readable body part of the DSN.

   2) If an MSA generates a DSN for a message that includes a Future
      Delivery request, the MSA MUST include a Future-Delivery-Date:
      field in the machine-readable body part of the DSN.

      The Future-Delivery-Date: field is an extension to the set of DSN
      per-message fields described in [n8].  Using ABNF [n2], the syntax
      of this new field is as follows:

         future-delivery-date-field = "Future-Delivery-Date:" date-time

      The value of date-time is calculated by adding the value of
      the future-delivery-interval-param to the locale-specific absolute
      time at which the MSA received the message.  The date-time format
      is described in [n5];  however, a numeric zone value MUST be used
      within the date-time in order to align with other date fields
      defined in [n8].

</excerpt>

My assumption is that when a submission server encounters a fatal error
trying to send a message to the next hop, a DSN is generated and deposited
in the mailbox of the message-sender.  Based on this assumption, my thoughts
were:

1)  requiring a Future-Delivery-Date: field would lend context to the DSN
and provide more info re. the original message

2)  requiring an Arrival-Date: field (which indicates the date-time at which
the original message arrived at the reporting server, in this case, the MSA)
would provide help indicate client input error (i.e. if Arrival-Date: occurs
after Future-Delivery-Date:, the user mucked up his input...).

So, my questions are:

1)  Is any of this information important/usable when an MSA generates a DSN
for a future delivery message?

2)  If we keep the Future-Delivery-Date: field, is this the field to be used
regardless of future request method (hold-for or hold-until), or should
there be a separate field for the hold-for method (e.g.
Future-Delivery-Interval:)?

3)  If we need this info, what about a Future-Delivery-Date: field and a
Future-Delivery-Type: field that basically contains the info from the MAIL
command parameter?

4)  If we need this info, does the Future-Delivery-Date: value need to be
RFC3339 (all the other date-time values is DSN are RFC2822)?  If the value
is RFC3339, does this violate existing DSN specs?

Again, thanks for your comments...

Greg White

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade