[Top] [All Lists]


2001-06-29 06:00:18

At 02:28 PM 6/27/2001, ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
 The statement was that it would go unused.
That's demonstrably false.

The bottom line is that I think this is one of those things that the world
wants. (Needs is another matter.) So if we specify a priority mechanism that's
reasonable and implementable it will deploy rapidly and widely.

1. As stated, the option leaves senders with an incentive to always set high priority. It costs them nothing to do this. As we have seen with spammers, some substantial portion of the community will in fact abuse the option, thereby rendering useless. Some of you believe that human behavior will be different from this projection; please explain.

2. References to usage of SMTP Auth with this option are confusing, since it is used for posting, not relaying. I'd appreciate clarification to this point.

3. The proposal presumes that a simple rank-ordering approach, by priority, is an appropriate queuing model for global Internet mail relays. To the extent that the proposal attempts less than that -- for example, simply trying to provide an advisory that each relay will use in whatever way that it feels appropriate -- then it does little more than substantiate the send-and-pray view of Internet mail. Users will have no basis for knowing what to expect from the relay path. The purpose of QoS mechanisms is to increase predictability. This will not achieve that.

4. The IETF does not do intranet standards. This option looks quite reasonable for use within a single administrative domain, where system-wide handling policies can be established AND enforced. For the global Internet, the Force is very much against successful operation.


Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>