[Standards] reliable messaging

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed Jun 17 14:20:43 UTC 2009

On Wed Jun 17 15:13:23 2009, Brian Cully wrote:
> 	If one were to go so far as to cryptographically sign the message   
> receipt in some way (especially with a signature based on the  
> contents  of the original message) you've gone another step to show  
> that the  client got the message and processed it in some way. I'd  
> venture to  say that for most scenarios that kind of receipt would  
> be more than  good enough.

Any kind of positive receipt, with no sign of error, is, I think, at  
least good enough to say "there is nothing more I can do" as a sender.

I think that includes receipt of a response to a ping sent  
immediately after the message, if nothing more atomic is available.

Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

More information about the Standards mailing list