[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING
On Oct 17, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On 17/10/2011 18:46, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> BTW, Keith, many GL servers already have responses with hints.
>> yes, I know. but just because someone decided to add a %d to a printf doesn't mean it should be standardized.
> I must be missing something. I'm struggling to see why so many people think that changing a server that gives a hint from saying
> 421 This server implements greylisting, please try again in # seconds
> to saying
> 421 [retry=#s] This server implements greylisting, please try again in # seconds
> could possibly be a bad thing...
Anything that increases complexity of mail clients should be considered suspect. (i.e. it's not the burden on the server that I'm concerned about...)
That and it seems that we have a lot of people jumping on a bandwagon to define something new without any reason to believe that it will provide a significant benefit.
Every new RFC that needs to be written can, in some sense, be considered a failure.... unless that RFC replaces some other document that was more ambiguous or took up more pages.