[Top] [All Lists]


2011-10-18 13:42:28

-----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 Hector
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:31 AM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: We need an IETF BCP for GREY LISTING

Murray, I'm sure you are aware, this doesn't mean that a) it isn't so,
and b) they are not "feeling" the Greylisting in their outbound mail
for which more than likely, its a pure guessing game for them on the

I'm simply attempting to determine who would implement the SMTP extension 
you're espousing.  As far as I can tell there are some vendors willing to 
support it, but we haven't yet found a community of players that would be 
willing to activate and use such a feature, simply because it's not a pain 
point for any of them; certainly the wasted retries could certainly be 
optimized, but if they're not harmful at the moment then spending the energy to 
produce a standard and patch all the software out there seems a pretty high 
cost for little perceived gain.  And since most of them operate at enormous 
scales compared to you or me, and it's not a problem for them, well, ... you do 
the math.

As I stated before, even if a system hasn't implemented it yet, GL is
widely supported and they are feeling it in greater numbers.

There seems to be no data supporting this, only conjecture.  You've observed 
that it's happening, and there's no doubt about that.  But that doesn't mean 
it's creating a widespread problem that needs to be solved with protocol 

Its good to get feed back from your peers if you don't have the direct
experiences yourself in the actual product coding, field testing, fine
tunning and seeing how it has evolved over the last 8 years, [...]

It's folly to presume that people participating in this thread don't have the 
experiences and duties you're listing here, and more.

Greylisting has been common practice for many years, so there's plenty of 
experience with using it from both client and server perspectives, enough to 
provide useful input to produce a BCP.  Since you're asking what it would 
probably say, I imagine the content of that BCP (timeouts, databases, 
relationship to SMTP, SMTP reply contents, etc.) would be based on consensus of 
this or some other group.  You're already familiar with the consensus procedure.