[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-smtp-metadata-00.txt

2015-03-23 17:02:15
On 03/22/2015 10:52 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On 22/03/2015 21:13, John R Levine wrote:
So I think it would work fine if people implemented it, but unless
there's a very concrete use case and people ready write and deploy
those implementations, I wouldn't bother.
Fair comment, see use case examples in the document.

I don't understand the benefit of putting the headers in a separate chunk.
See my reply to Stephan. I admit, I haven't decided myself how useful this might be.
Setting suggested IMAP flags seems easy to do in a header if someone wants to do that.
It bothers me that we keep minting new SMTP extensions. There was an SMTP/LMTP extension proposal for passing IMAP flags. Stuff like DSN parameters could have been done as transaction state block 0. I know it is too late to change DSN, but I am wondering if doing something more generic would be useful.

The third use case is key material exchange a la DarkMail, but I will see if there is any interest in that idea.

a fourth use case might be, for MLM's to make a diff between:

a) original message and
b) the message the MLM will distribute

and to send this diff along with the original DKIM-Signature in a 'container'. The receiver MTA could reconstruct the original message and verify the original DKIM-Signature (and e.g. apply DMARC).


ietf-smtp mailing list