Well, my point in relation to SMS was that as a side effect of SMS QoS,
as a sender you know almost instantly when someone got your message and
you can act upon it.
- if you have been chasing someone all day unsuccessfully, you can give
them a call, when you receive the delivery note because you know they
are signed on now
- if you have been delivering some vital information, you can time your
follow up based on the time you know your message was delivered and your
counterpart cannot easily claim they were unaware of what you told them
in the message because "the dog ate the fax" etc
- likewise, you may sent an SMS telling your counterpart that you have
just sent an important email and asking them that they SMS you back if
they haven't received it within the hour etc
These "side effects" of SMS have been proven very valuable in business
and I cannot see how you could replicate this with an email based
messaging system as all confirmations are on a voluntary basis, which
admittedly has its advantages too.
The argument is not about "which system is better" from a technical
implementation point of view, but instead "are there any uses which add
value and would be worthwhile having".
regards
benjamin
On Friday, June 21, 2002, at 02:44 , Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Benjamin Kowarsch wrote:
>
>> Thus, the status of an SMS is always known. It's either delivered or
>> failed. In that sense it does not get lost.
>
> Is it really the case that mail messages to Docomo phones can get
> blackholed? The are really only two ways that that could happen:
>
> 1. One of the MTAs in the delivery chain drops the message on
> the floor.
>
> 2. The message has an invalid envelope address, and thus the
> "delivery failed" message cannot be returned to the sender.
>
> Admittedly, the usual timeout is 7 days, which is a little long
> for typical mobile applications....
Received on Fri Jun 21 15:00:35 2002