Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> > 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.
> > Richard Kulawiec stated:
> >
> > 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.
Who said anything dismissing efforts?  For many, the longer email is 
delayed, the less value it has. That "premise" is not contradictive of 
anything or any efforts to improve the timely/acceptance delivery 
problem. There are many representations here - the issues apply to 
everyone who is the business of supplying SMTP software or who operate 
mail systems of any size.  Lets not create a chasm once again.
> > 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.
It timely delivery is still important.  But the reality is GL is 
contributing to that problem.  GL is something that we can grasp and 
so far, almost everyone here agrees a IETF document should help in 
some manner, if only to document the BCP.
I don't think you are grasping that for many GL rejections is going 
beyond the first attempt.
--
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com