----- Original Message -----
From: "Viktor S. Grishchenko" <gritzko(_at_)post(_dot_)dcn(_dot_)ru>
3. Gradual enforcement
So (in my humble opinion) gradual enforcement policies have to be
discussed
and somehow recommended (or deprecated) by RFC. Following is some
variants.
3.1. postmaster notification
Most trivial measure is notification of postmaster@ of non-LMAP domain
about
deadline approaching.
3.2. random tempfail
Other possible measure is first-time TEMPFAIL reject with commentary
notifying sender and postmaster of sender's domain about deadline. Random
TEMPFAIL is also possible. In most cases, the mail will finally be
delivered
(by nth attempt, n hours later). Probability of reject may depend on
date/time (reaching 1.0 at M-day noon, for example).
3.3. timeframe tempfail
More complicated possible strategy is a closing timeframe. I.e. at some
'happy' seconds mails from non-LMAP domains are accepted, at other seconds
TEMPFAIL is returned. Percentage of 'happy' seconds gradually decreases
until
M day. So, non-LMAP senders and admins will be receiving ever growing
stream
of unignorable notifications, while e-mail communication will remain
actually
functioning (at least, some time before M day).
Should we say "LMAP-conformant" or "LMAP-compliant"? I have usually heard
the term "compliant" in other matters but perhaps that was for some
particular point of meaning?
In reading the original posting, the term "conformant" (or "non-") described
only the originator. It is certainly possible for a domain to be conformant
or not as an originator while simultaineously being conformant or not as a
recipient. Should we use a term other than "conformant" to describe a
recipient such as "LMAP-using" or "LMAP-implementing"? A special case might
be "LMAP-enforcing".
I like your ideas for gradual enforcement. In effect, recipients who
implement LMAP (whatever we call them) would automatically encourage
non-conformant originators to become conformant...at least as originators.
Use of TEMPFAIL for this purpose could be based on a constant percentage
probability or a gradually increasing probability between a start date and a
target date. The probability and/or dates could be adjustable by the admin
but, perhaps, the default value for the target date could be the same for
the entire planet (perhaps, 1-year after RFC publication?).
A concern is that some messages will go undelivered prior to "M Day". At a
very low probability of LMAP-related TEMPFAIL, the next attempt will usually
get the message through. If I understand correctly, however, given enough
messages, some messages will eventually fail to be transferred because the
retries are also unlucky enough to get TEMPFAILs and the originating users
will get Non-Delivery Notifications. How well might such a plan be received
by admins and ISP owners?
-Dave
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg