Scribd
Upload
184 views2 pages

Email Urgency Protocol Proposal

1. The document discusses assigning priority levels to email messages. It suggests interpreting various priority values, from 10 (phone the recipient in the middle of the night if needed) to 0 (junk mail). 2. While priority levels could be useful, humans will be inconsistent in their assignments. The document proposes only including priority as information in the protocol, letting humans and servers decide how to handle it. 3. Interpretations are suggested so programmers can assign reasonable urgency values to automatically generated mail like status notifications.

Uploaded by

Liz Mar Cielo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
184 views2 pages

Email Urgency Protocol Proposal

1. The document discusses assigning priority levels to email messages. It suggests interpreting various priority values, from 10 (phone the recipient in the middle of the night if needed) to 0 (junk mail). 2. While priority levels could be useful, humans will be inconsistent in their assignments. The document proposes only including priority as information in the protocol, letting humans and servers decide how to handle it. 3. Interpretations are suggested so programmers can assign reasonable urgency values to automatically generated mail like status notifications.

Uploaded by

Liz Mar Cielo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

.. . " .-­ ECt.=.

1 E
-N vi G n~ f·C .<! 577 DHC 17-oC T-73 ll: ~2 l 13 S t
Mail pricrity
NOV 1 1973

Network ~orkin~ G~oun D.· Crocker (UC1A- ~MC)


Request for Co~P.ents: f 577 16 OCT 73

Nrc # 193~6
References: RFC 524, 539, 5SS

Nail Priority

In RYC 539 (tlIC--176Jb,3d:Qy) Postel and I suggested that mail


sender~ be allc~eG to assi~n a aegl·ee of priuri~y to t~eir mail.
White (~FC 55S--17993,6c:~y) objectee to definin~ anades of urgency,
without having tneir effects upo~ the ~lail rrotocol server also
defined. ..
If priority leveJ.R ~ere to be as~iined bY aUto~ata, I would agree

with Jiro. unfortunately, tte hu~an sender of the ma i l will usually

be the OLe 't. o as si s<: n the p r t or L t y , and h uma n s ~.;ill not be cons is ten t
in ttat assi~nnent. 4

Also unfortunately, the co~cept of ur~ency is an integral part of


c omaum.c a t.a on ,
If it we r e n t t , \--ie could ignore its inclusion into t n e
MP.

Since dist1ncticns in ur~ency are usefUl (~ecess2ry?) ana since


humans will oe t~e ones assi~nin~ specific de~rees of urgency
(thereby ~akin~ it inDossi~le for server processes to auto~aticallY
do the "ri~ht thing" in response), we su~gested only inclUding the
INFORMATION 2S part of the tlrotocol. l~t the hunan and
Server-~rccess receivers deciae between the~selves how the
server-orocess sr.ould .~eal ~ith that i~for~dt~on• 6

.•

RECEIVED AT NIC OCTOBER 19, 1973.

NWG I RF'~h 577 DHC 17-0CT-73 11:u2 19 - ~~


Mail Pricrl. t.y

Now ~h~~ I h~vp .a l l t,ha~, let n~ sugg~st interpre~ations for


argue~
urgency valu~s. This is so tha~ prograr-~ers can have
auto~ata-~~n~r~ted ma i l (e.~., not,ific~t,ion of tne sta~us of
previously se~t ~ail) c~rry reasonable urgency values: 7
10 Phone in t r.e j.1i c d l e of the nig n t , if n e c e ss a r y , 7
9 7
8 Deliver to user's terminal NOW. 7c
7 7d.
6 Deliver to u s e r i s t e r mf.riaL c n Ly if user is at "e xec "

level.
7
S 7 i.
h DelivEr ir.~eaiq~£lY ~f~er sicn-on ~r before sign-off. 7g
3 7h
2 Deliver into s~a~dard ~ailbox. 71
1 7j
o Junk I:ail 7

You might also like