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

S Moonesamy <> Tue, 22 May 2012 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E99F121F855B; Mon, 21 May 2012 17:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.475
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i2bgaNVRgIMI; Mon, 21 May 2012 17:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FFB21F8575; Mon, 21 May 2012 17:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4M073FV029238 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 21 May 2012 17:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1337645237;; bh=jM4kkq/ajasf4w8DaqTRlxzesL3qxLwCFqKKlCc9NZQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=eRr6VuRyGecimFcbUEBbJ7eRnUjr1lOA5EBB8kRIHvVJJu5W5K3SIoRw+4hkEn0m8 /8om31ctSEUSGloOL/9K/XlmemekQ1+OZvWcRnRXaun4rIgSwcju6ndE0rgZ8vT0+b m1CM7Fs5S8il70GvUrHqGtvFnmgGJe5uWqjhyIic=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1337645237;; bh=jM4kkq/ajasf4w8DaqTRlxzesL3qxLwCFqKKlCc9NZQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=iahJomVe6vzs34Fl/itp6cop2ZNzEDgVv9ktZrmI3simxpC/ig2dIFXPMiQEZBRYM qR8IR89Jk0Mni3/w4KWfewbwg/m9wiFcEFNPJkWfPVAqD5ksKa4EMkn1BPw/PVswSz 13B94ptRp6Z+IjihAkI2l3FGWshP2ZuiG41w+uP8=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:05:37 -0700
To: Barry Leiba <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJ_VHpJwK1ooGPjRXO7UnL6mpvkwiXZb9E-G9bhGX7S=A@mail.g>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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: Tue, 22 May 2012 00:07:23 -0000

Hi Barry,
At 16:41 21-05-2012, Barry Leiba wrote:
>[Re-sending this with the correct draft alias (without the version number).]

Thanks.  I preferred not resend the message to avoid generating mail traffic.

>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.


>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.

I'll stay out of that discussion.

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

That was my first thought.

I consider the comments were addressed.

S. Moonesamy