Subject: RE: [lemonade] Message priority

From: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 10:36:39 -0400

Should we say anything at all about "other popular versions"?

Sent from my Treo. Sorry if terse.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Saturday, September 09, 2006 09:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Burger, Eric; IETF LEMONADE
Subject:	RE: [lemonade] Message priority

Yes, please.

Must send (when the value is other than normal), Must receive, interpret, and present to user, may send and receive other popular versions as well.  If there is a conflict, use the value in the Importance header.

Greg V.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Burger [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Randall Gellens; Ben Last; IETF LEMONADE
Subject: Re: [lemonade] Message priority

Would it be reasonable to say, "Use Importance.  Yes, we acknowledge the
existence of proprietary headers for notating Importance, but Importance is
the only standard method of indicating priority."?

On 8/25/06 8:59 PM, "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As an aside, note that 'Importance' is the politically-correct
> version of 'x-priority'.  Many clients today recognize both; some
> generate one, some both.
> --
> Randall Gellens
> Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
> -------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
> Frankly, facts have nothing to do with what people's opinions are
> and will be.
>     --Jon Bond, president Bond + Partners (an ad agency), talking
>     about political commercials
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lemonade mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
> 

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:49:45 -0700

>  Should we say anything at all about "other popular versions"?

RFC 4356 (the MMS mappings document produced within this WG) says:

    Importance

    The message sender's importance value (also called "priority",
    although this can be confused with class-of-service values) is
    expressed with an 'Importance:' header.  Historically, some clients
    used the older and non-standard 'X-Priority:' header for this
    purpose.  As a result, some clients generate both.

    An 'X-Priority:' or 'Importance:' header, if present, SHOULD be
    replaced with an 'X-Mms-Priority:' header.  If both headers are
    present, 'Importance:' SHOULD be used.  Suggested mappings are shown
    in Table 3:

2.1.3.3.1.  Table 3:  Priority Mappings (Internet Message to MMS)

       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'X-Priority: 1 (highest)'      |'X-Mms-Priority: High'
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'X-Priority: 2 (high)'         |'X-Mms-Priority: High'
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'Importance: High'             |'X-Mms-Priority: High'
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'X-Priority: 3 (normal)'       |      [omitted]
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'Importance: Normal'           |      [omitted]
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'X-Priority: 4 (low)'          |'X-Mms-Priority: Low'
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'Importance: Low'              |'X-Mms-Priority: Low'
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'X-Priority: 5 (lowest)'       |'X-Mms-Priority: Low'
       ------------------From [email-masked] Mon Sep 11 17:54:17 2006
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:49:45 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lemonade] Message priority

>  Should we say anything at all about "other popular versions"?

RFC 4356 (the MMS mappings document produced within this WG) says:

    Importance

    The message sender's importance value (also called "priority",
    although this can be confused with class-of-service values) is
    expressed with an 'Importance:' header.  Historically, some clients
    used the older and non-standard 'X-Priority:' header for this
    purpose.  As a result, some clients generate both.

    An 'X-Priority:' or 'Importance:' header, if present, SHOULD be
    replaced with an 'X-Mms-Priority:' header.  If both headers are
    present, 'Importance:' SHOULD be used.  Suggested mappings are shown
    in Table 3:

2.1.3.3.1.  Table 3:  Priority Mappings (Internet Message to MMS)

       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'X-Priority: 1 (highest)'      |'X-Mms-Priority: High'
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'X-Priority: 2 (high)'         |'X-Mms-Priority: High'
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'Importance: High'             |'X-Mms-Priority: High'
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'X-Priority: 3 (normal)'       |      [omitted]
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'Importance: Normal'           |      [omitted]
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'X-Priority: 4 (low)'          |'X-Mms-Priority: Low'
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'Importance: Low'              |'X-Mms-Priority: Low'
       -------------------------------|----------------------
       'X-Priority: 5 (lowest)'       |'X-Mms-Priority: Low'
       -------------------------------|----------------------

    Normal importance messages SHOULD omit the 'X-Mms-Priority:' header.

-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of
them to choose from.                  --Andrew S. Tanenbaum

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:07:29 -0700

>  RFC 4356 (the MMS mappings document produced within this WG) says:

[ quoted text deleted ]

The reason I included the table is to note that Importance and 
X-Priority have different values, in that Importance has three values 
while X-Priority has five.  So any mention of either should note 
this, and suggest equating the two high and two low X-Priority values 
with the high and low (respectively) Priority values.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
...All repairs tend to destroy the structure [of the software], to
  increase the entropy and disorder of the system.  Less and less
  effort is spent on fixing original design flaws; more and more is
  spent on fixing flaws introduced by earlier fixes.  As time passes,
  the system becomes less and less well-ordered.  Sooner or later the
  fixing ceases to gain any ground.  Each forward step is matched by a
  backward one.  Although in principle usable forever, the system has
  worn out as a base for progress.  [...] Systems program building is
  an entropy-decreasing process, hence inherently metastable.  Program
  maintenance is an entropy-increasing process, and even its most
  skillful execution only delays the subsidence of the system into
  unfixable obsolescence.
                             --Fred Brooks in _The Mythical Man Month_