Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id IAA05326; Sat, 25 May 1996 08:30:34 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.6); Sat, 25 May 1996 08:30:17 -0400 Received: from a4.jck.com (ns.jck.com [206.99.215.40]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id IAA05249; Sat, 25 May 1996 08:30:14 -0400 Received: from white-box.jck.com ("port 2008"@white-box.jck.com) by a4.jck.com (PMDF V5.0-5 #16053) id <0DRY6Q2K2000C0@a4.jck.com>; Sat, 25 May 1996 02:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 02:15:38 -0400 (EDT) From: John C Klensin Subject: Re: APIs for Internet Mail Sender: klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net To: RANDY@MPA15AB.mv.Unisys.COM Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.0.6 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: NORMAL X-Authentication: none On Fri, 24 May 1996 14:08 +0000 RANDY@MPA15AB.mv.Unisys.COM wrote: > I also see companies pursuing MAPI/CMC interfaces in their products. I > was wondering how complete is the coverage between Internet Mail > functionality (especially MIME, DSN, and other extensions) and MAPI/CMC. > Are there things that the protocol suite or the API offer but the other > does not? Would there be problems tunneling between them? The short answer is "yes". The longer one is that, as far as I know, all these systems other than MIME use a flat "message and attachments" model, while MIME uses a nested hierarchy of body parts that are presumed equal in importance at any given level. It is hard to map hierarchies onto a flat structure without loss of information. john