-----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 Richard
Kulawiec
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 11:15 AM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 01:42:18PM -0400, Hector wrote:
Here is the thing, IMO, the prize at the end of the day is:
Fastest, less waste in Delivery and High Throughput
For many, an email today has "No Value" tomorrow, especially in the
business world. I'm sure that is the normal expectation for most
systems and people expecting timely emails.
The problem here, I think, isn't the technology: it's unrealistic and/or
misplaced expectations. If I might quote my own haiku on this subject:
Mail is not the web
Mail is not for file transfer
Mail is not I M
It's certainly true that a subset of people expect mail to be very
fast; it might even be true that this subset is large enough that
it's "normal". But I don't think that necessarily means we should
engineer to meet that expectation, just as I don't think the propensity
of some people to attempt transfer of 100M files via email means that
we should engineer to make that feasible.
I agree. What's more, I think the "no value" premise seems to contradict the
massive efforts undertaken by some very large companies to maintain user trust
in email. I have to think given the weight behind those efforts that it's not
so easily dismissed as a fool's errand.
Maybe a shorter way to put that last paragraph is that if we agree that
reasonably timely delivery of mail is a Good Thing, then I think we have
many other problems to tackle before we turn our attention to
greylisting.
Agree here too.
-MSK