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]

 



On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 22:02, Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>    Other message header fields, such as Importance [RFC2156], Priority
>> >>    [RFC2156] and X-Priority, are used inconsistently and often with
>> >>    different semantics from MT-Priority.  Message Submission Agents
>> >>    [RFC6409] MAY use such fields to assign an initial priority in the
>> >>    absence of an SMTP PRIORITY parameter.  Otherwise, such fields
>> >>    MUST NOT be used for determining the priority under this "Priority
>> >>    Message Handling" SMTP extension.
>> >
>> > It seems you're complaining about other people doing something they never
>> > wanted to do while actually making that error yourself.
>
>> I have no idea what you mean, so perhaps you can be more specific
>> about what it is that you want to do.
>
> I'm talking about the inclusion of Importance: in both the original and revised
> text as a field we're suggesting might make sense to map. It should not be
> there - the semantics are not compatible with MTA priority.

Ah, OK.  So there's no strawman that I've been constructing, or any such.

Alexey had just included Important, along with Priority and
X-Priority, as an example of other priority-like fields that he didn't
want implementations to use for this purpose.  When you balked at the
blanket ban, I proposed an alternative that just called out the same
set of fields.

What we need is replacement text that makes sense: that says which
(known) fields can maybe-kinda-sorta-ifyouhaveto be used here, and
which ones absolutely can't (wrong semantics).  I think such advice is
important if we're going to keep the tunneling thing in here.  If
you'd like to take a stab at suggesting replacement text, I, and I
think Alexey, would be very grateful.  You have a much better idea
than I do of what actual use is being made of the different fields
currently.

> The semantics of X-Priority are less clear. It's sometimes used for MTA
> priority setting, other times it's been an MUA field.

That's why I added "inconsistently" into my text.

So... can we get text that gives the proper fields, the proper
warnings, the proper MAYs, SHOULDs, and MUST NOTs, and all that?

Barry
_______________________________________________
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]