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

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 24 May 2012 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2974221F8602; Thu, 24 May 2012 02:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z52W7XpxEOPV; Thu, 24 May 2012 02:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1099F21F860B; Thu, 24 May 2012 02:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4O9fqfv026264 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 24 May 2012 02:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1337852531;; bh=7bl6Jk7PTz1vO6KqjA68PzBqCfvALewKaHtRP+lPV5g=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=uBeX3vKsd5VF+RolFwbkcNn1XG7cMG4KgciGLzP5BYYVX8CdkyckvYf9LXP0q5SBQ MRqpBYM3frIP+HT6q3Ic1qmCBsMm8Zb4juWs7fdenkVKTHplpXwf1Jwrwm0VPWZ52D HpHQs2pWmRFtuYVSKYW32+RCsMeS5e4UwR9tJb30=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1337852531;; bh=7bl6Jk7PTz1vO6KqjA68PzBqCfvALewKaHtRP+lPV5g=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=k9r11zJiBeBWUarHS6T0MQp7qGK31FIklEE5tC+9hS8MGrzZNb5D4r8BNw1JsVsFD n1tPqL1zed3QwuJImnA/eAPUWyIOJl7w69SpGxgkTyxF5IWlgH6pW+3wESJ3CKZYHX heCqQgNXdIwhpUX/2rpHNP75FRcyFE9rCzujVLcc=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 02:29:54 -0700
To: Alexey Melnikov <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:42:15 -0000

Hi Alexey,
At 01:30 24-05-2012, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>I tend to agree with Barry that this should remain MUST.


>If you don't mind, I leave this sort of stuff to RFC Editor.


>This is the default (IANA's web page says that all extensions are 
>suitable for Submission port, unless specified otherwise). But I 
>will add a clarifying sentence.


For information, Section 7 of RFC 6409 mentions that "future SMTP 
extensions SHOULD explicitly specify if they are valid on the 
Submission port".  The draft specifies that in item 7 of Section 3.

Thanks for addressing the comments.

S. Moonesamy