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

RE: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-smtp@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-smtp@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hector
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:31 AM
> To: ietf-smtp@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING
> 
> Murray, I'm sure you are aware, this doesn't mean that a) it isn't so,
> and b) they are not "feeling" the Greylisting in their outbound mail
> for which more than likely, its a pure guessing game for them on the
> retries.

I'm simply attempting to determine who would implement the SMTP extension you're espousing.  As far as I can tell there are some vendors willing to support it, but we haven't yet found a community of players that would be willing to activate and use such a feature, simply because it's not a pain point for any of them; certainly the wasted retries could certainly be optimized, but if they're not harmful at the moment then spending the energy to produce a standard and patch all the software out there seems a pretty high cost for little perceived gain.  And since most of them operate at enormous scales compared to you or me, and it's not a problem for them, well, ... you do the math.

> As I stated before, even if a system hasn't implemented it yet, GL is
> widely supported and they are feeling it in greater numbers.

There seems to be no data supporting this, only conjecture.  You've observed that it's happening, and there's no doubt about that.  But that doesn't mean it's creating a widespread problem that needs to be solved with protocol changes.

> Its good to get feed back from your peers if you don't have the direct
> experiences yourself in the actual product coding, field testing, fine
> tunning and seeing how it has evolved over the last 8 years, [...]

It's folly to presume that people participating in this thread don't have the experiences and duties you're listing here, and more.

Greylisting has been common practice for many years, so there's plenty of experience with using it from both client and server perspectives, enough to provide useful input to produce a BCP.  Since you're asking what it would probably say, I imagine the content of that BCP (timeouts, databases, relationship to SMTP, SMTP reply contents, etc.) would be based on consensus of this or some other group.  You're already familiar with the consensus procedure.

-MSK