IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 22 March 2015 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5E11A1BAF for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 14:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ew27dU0aM1Ro for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 14:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0786E1A1B9A for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 14:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10360 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2015 21:13:32 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=2877.550f307c.k1503; bh=zE8Kblp4AEN/HubePs5auQs/5DTih9dsq8GV+SAX1Tw=; b=aMINqdWkYkwVuIQgB4/Kv0ielOh27Qw2lZf0lty2hWBfv2YlaLYiw7cKPQMmu4wW7uBc47qFiIZ8zXvowAFH9ytbXSiF20I6Ep32CmygNV8AV5UtjSjD/W3hi6UE6wbZ8MzV6trtJeh+oTj0UDE4v8+AZgDbwlp7uipzV7a2cCNHz9kE9WHTmWXSj8mFi+HlU5h0dR6t7PSV0eP6t+JxEVHrduYoDg7tjCHzhWv89w+om904O8YWKDoVcFKPZGgW
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=2877.550f307c.k1503; bh=zE8Kblp4AEN/HubePs5auQs/5DTih9dsq8GV+SAX1Tw=; b=mSMlbDhaS0CmOqaJ1mNgj0nDZmKr1bwLVevApHOv8a+qi9FIX/4bMA3+0q3f7YJQn5l6lbbGsrxNBhdEJc/4sdH2Q3mea2RiQJ/iL5CJKHiDPFaqNAZT8YNSzfzJlp+iDr12rsgcxsw3x4Y7qQwqy99kafJvK7RLO+XJe/xyM+jBILOu162lwZCyhNbESLZSlmk+hoFRf6n/7N0B8pa0R2WI0Jv9eU4LS2tVmbr5wANyPOxBKY7v71VMR2negTcd
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 22 Mar 2015 21:13:32 -0000
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:13:31 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1503221606170.58010@dhcp-b142.meeting.ietf.org>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <550F269C.10109@isode.com>
References: <20150322201631.37192.qmail@ary.lan> <550F269C.10109@isode.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/cNOnfELD01dF-JE87xFKXLkT8TE>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-smtp-metadata-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 21:13:35 -0000

>> 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. 
Setting suggested IMAP flags seems easy to do in a header if someone wants 
to do that.

Again, if people want to do this in SMTP I wouldn't be opposed to it, but 
I'd really want to see some indication that there's some likelihood that 
it'll be implemented.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email