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

Barry Leiba <> Mon, 21 May 2012 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6528621F85A5; Mon, 21 May 2012 16:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.794
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.794 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.183, 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 Fq67Gnf5zs-F; Mon, 21 May 2012 16:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F1821F8569; Mon, 21 May 2012 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbeh20 with SMTP id eh20so10826745obb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 21 May 2012 16:41:36 -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=wH2/4zOrOVDn/yYxkwBaWzztRb/d7suxpya83LkFtpY=; b=o4QbpOHNOZOhAOawAs86KzbdVpNWk/5lNqVum+UXDu4oIW9hA0OypSIejK7oZ2SiEl Pab6qEyVm+XpYLyrBFHm3porX30XJvNXuHgKmQc+mQ9wGVWoKbbM0MbFjDGibH8EuiNI q2GvFJVu4wndscruIpsK6k9TGMcNZ7hA9nWx9dKaEP876Hq4b402QdbjNbB+7Scgjmhq QuGmuzOlDTb0tcZhFYecmLTLQUmGXXdnvAD4VdDglLhbNl8HTO6qv3oJIupUkEbZRMfy k3fEzLnKclou2PFIhopjAPWUIHI4A7HK3gskNxDmtPUHtM6+wmU/C2shDXR2fcgqZi2y zvpQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id rk9mr20940097obb.50.1337643696320; Mon, 21 May 2012 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 21 May 2012 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 19:41:36 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Fk6I5XsYYNcm6xXXpGzM3zUpBgI
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: S Moonesamy <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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: Mon, 21 May 2012 23:41:37 -0000

[Re-sending this with the correct draft alias (without the version number).]

> I could have classified this under nits.  The authors already understand
> that it is not really an issue.

Understood also.  Still, opinion:

>>  Message Submission Agents MUST implement a policy that only allows
>>  authenticated users (or only certain groups of authenticated users)
>>  to specify message transfer priorities, and MAY restrict maximum
>>  priority values different groups of users can request, or MAY
>>  override the priority values specified by MUAs.
> I would have used a "SHOULD only allow authenticated users" and explain that
> there is a policy override.  It's to get around the "MUST implement a
> policy".

I think I actually prefer it the way it is, because it highlights the
key point that this is all a policy decision.  If, in fact, an
implementation should allow a policy that everyone's considered
authenticated, and some deployment should choose that policy, I'd be
fine with it... because they have chosen their policy.

>> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>> document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when they
>> appear in ALL CAPS.
> I suggest "upper case" instead of "ALL CAPS".

As this is my text, which I gave Alexey, I clearly prefer "ALL CAPS".
I like that it's demonstrative.  On the other hand, the discussion on about whether this is a wise idea or not brings up other
issues of more substance.

>  "The maximum length of a MAIL FROM command line is increased by 15
>   characters by the possible addition of the MT-PRIORITY keyword
>   and value."
> RFC 5321 uses the term "octets" instead of "characters".

I'd put this as a minor issue, rather than a nit, and strongly suggest
that it be changed.