[Top] [All Lists]

RE: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt

2012-01-10 12:12:33

-----Original Message-----
From: John Levine [mailto:johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:26 AM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt

It seems reasonable to use MUSTard that assumes that the reader is
going to implement this spec, in which case it's SHOULD and
RECOMMENDED.  Or not, in which case it's MAY and OPTIONAL.

Then given this and Dave's post, I'm inclined to go back to SHOULD.

It wasn't
clear to me that you're only expected to add the clause when you queue
the message for longer than normal, but that should be easy enough to

The second paragraph of the Introduction section is meant to make this plain, 
i.e., that you do this for anything other than 
queue-for-later-when-transport-fails.  Can you suggest wording tweaks?

Well, yeah, but there are a lot of kind of states other than queueing
states.  That's why I'd suggest a keyword that tells you this is about
queues or delays or something.

I've never heard "spam" (your example) used as part of a state machine.  It's 
essentially a label attached to a message, not a phase of handling while a 
message is in transit.