At 04.24 -0700 0-06-12, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com wrote:
The history of the precedence field is a pretty strong argument for
standardization, actually.
When there is such a field already used, but in different ways
by different mailers, it is often best to define a new field.
Since both "Priority" and "Importance" already are standardized,
but only for limited domains, it seems natural to extend what
already exists.
I am not sure one should really distinguish between "Priority"
and "Importance" in the way X.400 does. This distinction is not
very clear. If my mailer sorts by incoming messages, one could
argue that this should be based on "Priority" since this means
that the messages will reach me faster, or based on "Importance"
becuase sorting is a UA operation, not an MTA operation.
--
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/