Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-smtp-metadata-00.txt

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 22/03/2015 21:13, John R Levine wrote:
>>> So I think it would work fine if people implemented it, but unless
>>> there's a very concrete use case and people ready write and deploy
>>> those implementations, I wouldn't bother.
>> Fair comment, see use case examples in the document.
>
> I don't understand the benefit of putting the headers in a separate chunk.
See my reply to Stephan. I admit, I haven't decided myself how useful 
this might be.
> Setting suggested IMAP flags seems easy to do in a header if someone 
> wants to do that.
It bothers me that we keep minting new SMTP extensions. There was an 
SMTP/LMTP extension proposal for passing IMAP flags.
Stuff like DSN parameters could have been done as transaction state 
block 0. I know it is too late to change DSN, but I am wondering if 
doing something more generic would be useful.

The third use case is key material exchange a la DarkMail, but I will 
see if there is any interest in that idea.