Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-14

Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it> Tue, 05 June 2012 06:35 UTC

Return-Path: <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF7A21F865F; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 23:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vIXTuyz3M2Dq; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 23:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92C0C21F855A; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 23:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webcam1-all.garrtest.units.it (webcam1-all.garrtest.units.it [140.105.201.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q556Z9n3070112 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:35:11 +0200 (CEST)
X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it q556Z9n3070112
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=oRZmS6/oos6iIAGk04lmq0GDEjyLn/KBmYh1A6oY+wkL/lrWgzd3z3m5gnWS3guqA xWzzrWCEOjrRdwlkrC2JKdkC00pELm9jdVTcY/jzjOKeJ7ygkoVDjZTA43P90d7pap+ DFhUb4tucHN/iyFaPDg5Gn4SOZBzuZSTDpc+/d4=
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:35:09 +0200
From: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
X-X-Sender: claudio@webcam1-all.garrtest.units.it
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FCD4653.6080105@qualcomm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1206050832390.3164@webcam1-all.garrtest.units.it>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120521130747.0c219ab0@elandnews.com> <4FBDF199.2050300@isode.com> <4FC722A2.2050905@dcrocker.net> <4FC89931.5060201@isode.com> <4FC914DB.4000806@dcrocker.net> <4FCA6BFE.3050609@isode.com> <4FCD175D.30307@dcrocker.net> <01OGAJ8GBR2Q0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <F6882C013F7272CED4D345A9@PST.JCK.COM> <4FCD4653.6080105@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, draft-melnikov-smtp-priority.all@tools.ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-14
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 06:35:16 -0000

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Pete Resnick wrote:

> On 6/4/12 6:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> ...if the reality
>> is that people will demand mail prioritization --I suggest that
>> they will as long as there are Generals and they outrank
>> Lieutenants and maybe as long as there are mail service
>> providers who can figure out how to charge one class of
>> customers more for exactly the same service because that groups
>> is willing to pay to be important-- and, that by standardizing
>> something we can at least do a security analysis and contain
>> interoperability issues, then maybe we should just hold our
>> noses (or Alexey's) and do it.
>> 
>
> Speaking as the sponsoring AD, this is where I ended up. I find much of this 
> exercise silly; I find more than 5 "priorities" complete overkill, and I 
> think the likelihood that in a modern SMTP system any of these priorities 
> will cause a significant change in delivery time (or order, for that matter) 
> to be exceedingly low. That said, there is a community that insists on 
> attempting this, and it is not a completely insular community; they will 
> insist on implementations not of their own making to do "the right thing" 
> about this. Given that, I'd prefer we document it and see if it gets 
> deployment in any kind of interoperable way. If it doesn't, we move it to 
> Historic and move on with our lives.

+1 +1 +1

Also given the combination of other "actions" which happens to an e-mail 
message when traversing current MTAs and MUAs: Highest Priority which 
meets a graylisting in the middle... need other examples?

Let's see... and we check later on.

  >
> pr
>
> -- 
> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca