Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING
2011-10-17 13:16:17
Keith Moore wrote:
BTW, Keith, many GL servers already have responses with hints.
yes, I know. but just because someone decided to add a %d to a
printf doesn't mean it should be standardized.
Sure, but not just someone. That was at least 7 different systems
(based on a different response form) I listed from my quick viewing of
the logs. In addition, one needs to also consider that an engineering
thought process was done to add that information. I can see the need
for it to alleviate the waste and overhead in rejected delays, the
redundant retries, network communications and reducing the queuing
pressures. I'm sure if a formal standard was available, it would of
been used and perhaps others will also implement as well.
--
HLS
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, (continued)
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Hector
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Keith Moore
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Hector
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Keith Moore
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Hector
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Hector
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Keith Moore
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING,
Hector <=
- RE: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Murray S. Kucherawy
- RE: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Hector
- RE: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Paul Smith
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Keith Moore
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Richard Kulawiec
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Tim Kehres
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Rolf E. Sonneveld
- Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING, Keith Moore
|
|
|