On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 22:02, Ned Freed
<ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> wrote:
Other message header fields, such as Importance [RFC2156], Priority
[RFC2156] and X-Priority, are used inconsistently and often with
different semantics from MT-Priority. Message Submission Agents
[RFC6409] MAY use such fields to assign an initial priority in the
absence of an SMTP PRIORITY parameter. Otherwise, such fields
MUST NOT be used for determining the priority under this "Priority
Message Handling" SMTP extension.
It seems you're complaining about other people doing something they never
wanted to do while actually making that error yourself.
I have no idea what you mean, so perhaps you can be more specific
about what it is that you want to do.
I'm talking about the inclusion of Importance: in both the original and
revised
text as a field we're suggesting might make sense to map. It should not be
there - the semantics are not compatible with MTA priority.
Ah, OK. So there's no strawman that I've been constructing, or any such.
Alexey had just included Important, along with Priority and
X-Priority, as an example of other priority-like fields that he didn't
want implementations to use for this purpose. When you balked at the
blanket ban, I proposed an alternative that just called out the same
set of fields.
What we need is replacement text that makes sense: that says which
(known) fields can maybe-kinda-sorta-ifyouhaveto be used here, and
which ones absolutely can't (wrong semantics). I think such advice is
important if we're going to keep the tunneling thing in here. If
you'd like to take a stab at suggesting replacement text, I, and I
think Alexey, would be very grateful. You have a much better idea
than I do of what actual use is being made of the different fields
currently.
The semantics of X-Priority are less clear. It's sometimes used for MTA
priority setting, other times it's been an MUA field.
That's why I added "inconsistently" into my text.
So... can we get text that gives the proper fields, the proper
warnings, the proper MAYs, SHOULDs, and MUST NOTs, and all that?
Barry
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf