[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SMTP traffic control

2011-10-24 17:23:33

The cliche is nice, but there is a recognized problem and a reproducible proof of concept solution possible to help minimize the impact. Why does it have to be everyone's problem before a solution is sought? I guess some see smoke and others needs to see fire before acting on a solution.

MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
Personally I think this is a solution looking for a problem.
-----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 Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 9:50 AM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: SMTP traffic control

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosenwald, Jordan 
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 6:07 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: SMTP traffic control

I don't think I'm squashing such an idea (standardization is usually
beneficial). I'm more asking, IF we standardize what benefits do we
expect given that many large ISPs do provide much of the feedback
not in a standardized format)?
[So that's what that button does.]

Right, and I believe the goal is an optimization that reduces retries
that are doomed to fail.  The question you could probably answer from
your perspective is whether or not those retries are a problem for
either as a sender that provides queueing services for customers, or
a receiver that periodically temp-fails for resource reasons.
Standardizing the reply increases the likelihood that clients will
adhere.  But if the current setup isn't a pain point for you or
then that suggests there's not really a problem here worth solving.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>