ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed Standard

2012-03-01 17:38:40
From: barryleiba(_dot_)mailing(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com 
[mailto:barryleiba(_dot_)mailing(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com] On Behalf 
Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 3:01 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-07.txt> (Simple Mail 
Transfer Protocol extension for Message Transfer Priorities) to Proposed 
Standard

Oh, it's absolutely true that if one is to define this sort of thing as a 
combination of SMTP protocol and
message header fields, that should be done in a single specification.  What 
I'm interested in community input
on is whether the mechanism of transferring the information back and forth 
between the two, and having SMTP
protocol get involved in inspecting and altering header fields is a good 
thing.

It took me a bit of reading of older SMTP extension documents to realize that 
this was something new.  I had thought things like DELIVERBY did this, but I 
see now that's not the case.

To borrow some language from recent conversations that considered questions 
like this, it is only a /proposed/ standard we're talking about.

That said, are there any existing implementations of this that can speak to the 
question of unintended side effects?

-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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