[mail-vet-discuss] Auth-Results issues? #8 secton 5.1

[Tony Hansen]

In section 5.1, it says:

5.1.  Legacy MUAs

   Implementors of this proposal should be aware that many MUAs are
   unlikely to be retrofit to support the new header and its semantics.
   In the interests of convenience and quicker adaptation, a delivery
   MTA might want to consider adding things that are processed by exist-
   ing MUAs as well as the header defined by this specification.  One
   suggestion is to provide a Priority: header with a value that
   reflects the strength of the authentication that was accomplished,
   e.g. "low" for weak or no authentication, "normal" or "high" for good
   authentication.

Wow. I know you're trying to deal with legacy MUAs. But this is placing
a recommendation onto the MTA to do something wrong to work around a
possible problem with any MUAs that *may* be connected to that MTA. Yuck.

If you really need to make this suggestion, which I don't think is
really necessary, please note that Priority is already a registered
header with very specific semantics defined for it. This suggestion
subverts its other uses.

I think you should just get rid of this section.

	Tony Hansen
	tony at att.com