[mailto:owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 7:28 PM
To: SMTP Interest Group
Subject: Re: Server Enforcement of Time Blocks (wait=)
My point is if like Atkins proposal and might implement it, once
you do, you will be behaving like a Greylisted server.
That's simply not true. Please stop stating that.
Are you saying your proposal offer a server issuing of a "wait=" time
with no server tracking and enforcement?
Yes. It's purely a protocol for the server to communicate to
cooperative clients. I foresee the primary usage to be not enforced by
the server, certainly not on a real time basis, though it's something
that would be quite usable if the server were tracking clients in that
Moreover, IMHO, a protocol extension that imposes storage requirements of that
sort on the server is dead before it gets started.
Any protocol on this topic should present the mechanism for reporting a
requested wait time, and maybe a reason, and maybe with some reasonable
constraints, and that's it. Server-side implementation of the logic regarding
what it indicates in either of those places is entirely
implementation-specific, has nothing to do with interoperability, and thus
doesn't belong in an RFC.