The proper recipient to send this query to would be
eitherone of the IETF mailing lists for experts on
e-maillike for example IETF-822 Mailing List
<ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>, which is the most active present
mailing list on e-mail standards, or a selection of the
major experts in this area. I have added such a selection
as recipients of this e-mail, to save a step.
Here is what I believe these experts are going to say to you:
The "Precedence" and "Priority" e-mail headers are not
recommended in RFC 2076, because they have been used, and
are still being used, by different e-mail systems in
different ways. Thus, if you choose to use any of these
headers, your usage may conflict with existing usage by
some existing mail systems.
Because of this, these experts will recommend that you
handle this by a new header field not yet used for any
other purpose.
Some of the more dogmatic experts may say that you should
not use header fields at all, but instead some kind of SMTP
information. I would not agree, myself, with that more
fundamentalistic view.
My understanding is that there are already a number of
spam-control e-mail headers, so one task of your group
might be to specify a standard for such headers.
At 00:39 -0400 03-05-07, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
Dear Prof. Palme,
I am part of the IRTF working group on spam
(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html). I came across
your comments on the "Precedence" and "Priority" headers
in RFC 2076. I would like to share a copy of a proposal
with you regarding using those fields to fight spam and
wanted to know your thoughts on the matter.
Sincerely,
Yakov Shafranovich
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 00:32:08 -0400
To: Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
From: Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
Subject: Precedence of spam
There is no one overall solution that will magically
solve all of our spam problems. We must seek a
combination of several solutions which can significantly
reduce the overall volume of spam. Unfortunately, unlike
what most of us wish spammers are not going away so fast.
Neither will any servers on the Internet magically start
doing SMTP authentication - changes can take a lot of
time. We need to seek a combination of various changes to
protocols, policy suggestions and other solutions in
order to gradually reduce the problem.
In that same vein, I would like to make a small
suggestion which can help as part of an overall solution.
If we utilize some form of a RMX/rDNS system, there is
still an issue of dealing with the email arriving from
non-RMX/non-rDNS sites especially during the transition
process. Blacklisting or white listing is not a valid
option since that would block legitimate mail. I would
like to suggest something that I remember seeing either
here or elsewhere on the Net: assigning priority to each
message. Messages with different priority levels can be
routed accordingly, possible spam can be delayed by a
significant number of hours or days during which the
spammer's website and email accounts will be probably
terminated by their ISP. Legitimate email will still get
through, but the inherent "slowness" will force the
senders to complain to their ISP to switch over to a RMX
or rDNS system.
There are already two headers mentioned in RFC 2076,
section 3.9: "Priority:" and "Precedence:" According to
RFC 2076 these headers "can influence general usage
transmission speed and delivery". However, according to
the same RFC the "Priority" header is "not for general
usage" and the "Precedence" header is "non-standard,
controversial, discouraged". Perhaps as part of an
overall change in policy and protocols towards a
spam-free environment we should formalize one of these
two headers or define a new header, as part of the SMTP
protocol and ALSO define format procedures as to how the
difference "priority" or "precedence" levels should be
dealt with by MTAs. Sendmail, which is the most popular
MTA in use already deals with the "precedence" header as
can been seen in the "Installation and Operation Guide
for Sendmail 8.12", section #2.9.3
(http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/doc8.12/op-sh-2.html#sh-2.9.3):
"Precedence
The Precedence: header can be used as a crude control of
message priority. It tweaks the sort order in the queue
and can be configured to change the message timeout
values. The precedence of a message also controls how
delivery status notifications (DSNs) are processed for
that message. "
I am sure that if this header is formalized or a new
header is defined, AND formal guidelines are established
for routing such mail, SendMail and other MTAs can be
prevailed upon to support it.
I would like to hear any comments on this,
Yakov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakov Shafranovich / <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on
the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg