[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING




Rosenwald, Jordan wrote:
I agree structure = good, but in this case what is the endgame? What's the value? What would you do with the information if MTAs returned it?

Teach the MTA when they should reschedule to not waste attempts.

When we first implemented GL in early 2003, the two immediate needs were:

   - Shorter 2nd and 3rd Retries (within 5 mins)
   - Automated whitelisting of customers

So our implementation comes with auto white listing of recipients you directly write mail to with the idea you know them and would expect responses. This is done at the SMTP receiver for authorized mail authors of the local host. When anonymous senders, the greylist process checks this auto-whitelist.

And shorting the initial retries help address the delivery delays against remote sites now implementing Greylist.

While the history has been there were systems that wanted you to retry much later, maybe 1 hour, what I have been seeing increasing it has beyond 1 hour into days now. Today, this has caused some false positive bounces and flagging of "bad destination" address.

What will help is a structured response that will help the MTA to reschedule at the appropriate time and now waste all the attempts.

Further, there are customers with large mailing list to different destination email domains but are hosted by the same remote host. i.e. many email domains dealing in the same trade might be using the same set of MX hosting domains. They are now greylisting too and there are now a tremendous amount of waste in sending attempts.

Some don't even accept mail until after 5:00pm - end of the business.

Some TAKE down their server at 5:00pm and only bring it back at 9am the next morning.

I am seeing far too much waste in sending mail with GREYLIST implementations or those that "behave" like so with non-FULL time operations.

Something can be done.

--
HLS