Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-13

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 30 May 2012 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6E321F85A0; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.971
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7v6b1Z2LzDO0; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D48121F859A; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so64794yhq.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Jlmw/AfLhkmf83YKsAElTVn9Y6yFVBIsudlodU97OZc=; b=ZtMBhI2sv2x11RiVJQ7TSJ/V3F15mW7mJqZl6CDOURrj4yCq2A6eckqQYBilu2LkTD 1Tg03yZGGeExF82LclXh47X0TWgXPblVyjA5sMLSb3ccPxF+CxBE4NE7MJW8+t930sj7 zpMX8m+dtnKpr1oDQq9P8x7ckHUmZh0x9JzLcqIy7eSPKUql30LGuGLA9+G1bXheP6LE MK6DZHGoVhPW/W+TpoEj/M/yPK5/OmJ9UgEH+5F6Z4mms1Ab2D55DipuMAHQLRkUPfLF jlpVCZIGvrTOWVQRoRI+DtMk6H2+4F+y2K7BgI6qtipRmDhA7zFb1g2eC2I35kjdxsiD tcIw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id y5mr694742oeg.35.1338399019769; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:30:19 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: mlmIyAIijMZY4z_B2IAAkk8fCow
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Alexey Melnikov <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Pete Resnick <>,, S Moonesamy <>,,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-13
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:30:21 -0000

> I mostly used the current wording to avoid discussing what is
> authentication. I didn't mean "authentication with SMTP AUTH", because
> authentication by IP address is quite common (and sufficient in some
> environments).

Indeed, and how we used to use "pop-before-smtp".

Maybe the best thing to do is to change this to say something like this:

 Message Submission Agents ought only accept message transfer
 priorities from users (or groups of users) who are authenticated in some
 way that's acceptable to the MSA.  As part of this policy, they can also
 restrict maximum priority values that different groups of users can
 request, and can override the priority values specified by MUAs.

Note also the shift from normative language here, because it's
entirely a policy decision.  If you want to let the inmates run your
asylum, well, knock yourself out.