[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp

2011-10-26 10:53:36

On 10/26/2011 5:33 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 10/26/11 10:18 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Greylisting is not a protocol, according to any definition I know.

There is no way to test "interoperability".

Rubbish. I can assure you that if someone implemented greylisting in such a way
that "legitimate" mail stopped being delivered, because they set the greylist
timeout too long or...

You have just defined an interoperability criterion that includes all sources of software misbehavior, daemon sleep times, and anything else that can cause delays.

   Greylisting is far more obviously a protocol
with testable interoperability than is, say, RFC 5234 or 5322.

5322 and other format specs explicitly entail parsing and processing (and in the case of From: and Reply-to:, replying) by the remote engine. That's essential interoperability.

In other words, formats are inherently bilateral.  Greylisting is unilateral.

The interoperability mechanism relevant to greylisting is the /existing/ set of SMTP mechanisms. Greylisting is an indirect invocation of those mechanisms.

Again:  since my view is rubbish, please define an interoperability test for it.


  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking