RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> From: barryleiba.mailing.lists@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:barryleiba.mailing.lists@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 3:01 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard
> 
> Oh, it's absolutely true that if one is to define this sort of thing as a combination of SMTP protocol and
> message header fields, that should be done in a single specification.  What I'm interested in community input
> on is whether the mechanism of transferring the information back and forth between the two, and having SMTP
> protocol get involved in inspecting and altering header fields is a good thing.

It took me a bit of reading of older SMTP extension documents to realize that this was something new.  I had thought things like DELIVERBY did this, but I see now that's not the case.

To borrow some language from recent conversations that considered questions like this, it is only a /proposed/ standard we're talking about.

That said, are there any existing implementations of this that can speak to the question of unintended side effects?

-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]