Hi Bill,
Sorry for the slow response.
Bill McQuillan wrote:
On Fri, 2011-07-22, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
ken carlberg wrote:
On Jul 13, 2011, at 3:03 AM, Bill McQuillan wrote:
A value of 0 indicates an email from a client/network not
supporting priorities or intended to be sent to such a server/
network; this is the same as not specifying the PRIORITY
parameter.
The possibility that I might want to send a priority 0 (normal)
message FROM a conforming system TO a conforming system seems not
to be considered.
ok. It will be easy to add text and stating up front that a value of zero, by default, indicates
"normal". And then add the existing caveats. And by "normal", I assume that
we are in agreement that this describes the best effort service model that exists today as if the
proposed extension never existed.
I've tried to clarify this by removing "or intended to be sent", as this
is not relevant here. My current text reads:
A value of 0 indicates an email from a client/network not
supporting priorities, which is the same as not specifying the
PRIORITY parameter,
i.e. this value will cause the standard SMTP behaviour in absence
of this extension.
Is this better?
How about:
A value of 0 indicates an email which is to be handled at the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
normal priority level or is from a client/network not supporting
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
priorities, which is the same as not specifying the PRIORITY
parameter, i.e. this value will cause the standard SMTP behaviour
in absence of this extension.
To me "which is to be handled at the normal priority level" is the same
as "not specifying the PRIORITY parameter", that is why I still prefer
my version quoted above.