Subject: Re: [lemonade] Message priority

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:56:57 -0400

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

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:52:09 -0700

>  the only standard method of indicating priority."?

Yes, this is reasonable to say (as we did in RFC 4356), but what is 
the current context?  Is there a document under discussion to which 
such text is to be added?

(I am aware that Ben asked a question about how a client accesses 
Importance and/or X-Priority using IMAP, but I missed any mention of 
this being related to a specific document.)
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.  I said
I didn't know."                                      --Mark Twain

-------------|----------------------

    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 14:52:09 -0700

---

From: "Ben Last" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:27:19 +0100

From: Randall Gellens [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>(I am aware that Ben asked a question about how a client accesses
Importance
>and/or X-Priority using IMAP, but I missed any mention of this being
related
>to a specific document.)
I didn't ask in the context of any particular document, just about how
it was best accessed (and I was duly enlightened). :)

For what it's worth, our plan is that our client will generate both
X-Priority and Importance email headers (mapped as Randall suggests)
because we need to interoperate with other (non-Lemonade) email clients
who may require either.

b

Ben Last
EMCC Software Ltd

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:28:29 -0400

The beauty of the model is you can hack in all this proprietary stuff and it
does not break real e-mail servers and clients.

That said, Randy is right, the MMS mapping document does have mappings from
some of the "popular" proprietary hacks into the standard usage.

Moreover, rewarding bad behavior (proprietary hacks) encourages more bad
behavior.  Punishing bad behavior (only supporting standards) encourages
good behavior.  Keep this in mind, but do what you think is right.

Since there exists a document telling the bad guys how to do the right thing
(MMS mappings), I am inclined to only reference Importance in the Profile.

Anyone have a problem with this?

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:55:35 -0700

At 7:28 AM -0400 9/13/06, Eric Burger wrote:

>  I am inclined to only reference Importance in the Profile.

Reference how?

I'd previously asked which document, if any, we are discussing.  So 
it is Profile?.  I confess that I don't see anything in profile-bis 
that seems to be an appropriate place to discuss the Importance 
header field.  Could you be more explicit, please?
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
The significant problems that we face today cannot be solved at the
same level of thinking that created them.         --Albert Einstein

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 05:56:44 -0400

This thread started when someone essentially asked "Where is X-Priority?"
As usual, you are correct: we were not discussing a particular document.
However, the question tells me we need to document *somewhere* there is just
a single way of indicating message importance, and that is Importance.

Is there any place other than the Profile to put that in?

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:20:28 -0700

>  Is there any place other than the Profile to put that in?

An update to RFC 2076, perhaps?  ('Importance' itself is already 
mentioned in a few RFCs, but to my knowledge, the only one that 
actually mentions X-Priority in relation to Importance is the MMS 
Mapping draft, which disparages X-Priority (calling it "older and 
non-standard") but does say how to map between its five values and 
Importance's three.)

If it is to go into Profile, what would the context be?  I can think 
of a few possibilities that we might add: A mention of likely filter 
criteria that mobile clients might use?  A brief listing of confusing 
header fields?  A section on header fields that mobile clients should 
support?

-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.                --G.B. Shaw