[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Claus Assmann wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011, Hector wrote:
- A consideration to simplify Servers implementation of the
retry=time tag where the server blocking time is already known in
seconds and would be an easier text response change is replace the
text word to "retry=seconds" compared to calculated the time in a
- Do we need that kind of granularity?
- What's the purpose of providing all those alternatives:
select one format and be done with it, everything else
just adds sources of potential errors without any real gain.
Use just seconds or just minutes. IMHO minutes are good enough for
I agree sticking to 1 syntax is probably best with less concerns and
offers better endorsement value.
I am opening up the idea that for maybe better adoption by existing GL
servers who already have time hints in their responses and using a I/O
print format such as:
Send("451 Greylisted, please try again in %d seconds\r\n",
would only need to change the text:
Send("451 Greylisted, please try again. retry=%d\r\n",
which more than likely, the text is pulled from a separate language
resource file. So the proposed change here is very minimal and would
not require code image changes.
But I agree, along with others who voiced the same concern, keep it
simple and less prune to parsing errors will help endorsement.
I'm just pointing out how in supporting other syntax can minimize the
change needs to text response resource file that is separate from the
code. This is something operators can do and do need to wait for SMTP
developers and/or Greylisting ACL, SHIMS or hooks developers to catch up.
Whatever people think is best for endorsement. I'm open. My specific
implementation and parser will support the existing formats as well to
increase the effectiveness with existing GL servers - this has already
been shown to work very well.