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

Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING




+1

Dave CROCKER wrote:

On 10/16/2011 10:57 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
From: owner-ietf-smtp@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-smtp@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Kulawiec
Maybe a shorter way to put that last paragraph is that if we agree that
reasonably timely delivery of mail is a Good Thing, then I think we have
many other problems to tackle before we turn our attention to
greylisting.

Agree here too.

Greylisting is a widely used, undocumented set of features. Even the meaning of the term is ambiguous. For a widespread 'feature' of a critical infrastructure service, that's a generically Bad Thing.

It also has significant downsides, including delivery failure of legitimate mail. (I realize the thread so far has been unsympathetic to this, but it's a real issue.)

Any activity qualifying with the above needs documentation.

As for priorities, the wishlist of things to do is infinite. This issue is here now. It's gotten enough attention to sustain a thread. That makes it worth pursuing, if it doesn't take too much effort.

d/