ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING

2011-10-11 12:46:03

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org 
[mailto:owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Keith 
Moore
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 5:06 AM
To: Hector
Cc: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING

I think someone should take up the effort to begin/draft an GreyList
BCP for systems to follow.

Comments?

I'm not sure that it's worth the trouble.   The whole point of
greylisting is to marginalize naive client implementations on the
assumption (largely valid to this point) that they're likely to be
spambots.   But I expect that spambots will start to deal with
greylisting very soon.  If IETF were to document greylisting it would
only accelerate that process.

I agree.  I don't see what additional interoperability needs to be specified 
here that isn't already handled by RFC5321.  4xx means retry, and that's it.  
If, as a server, I give a hint as to when a retry will succeed, I'm giving the 
bad guys information that I don't want them to have, while a compliant RFC5321 
implementation will do just fine as it is.