Tim Kehres wrote:
While it might not help significantly, something more generic
would at least slightly and temporarily lower the odds of a
different problem.
A generic solution would also mean that we don't have to design the same
solution multiple times for different applications. A few cases were
brought up earlier such as if a site needs to be unavailable for a
pre-determined period of time (site maintenance, etc). I'm sure with
some thought we'd be able to come up with more, and as time goes on,
additional applications will probably also find this of use.
Here is what I think might be ideal:
ID1 - Base definition protocol for a standard structured format
for SMTP client/server Text Responses.
ID2 - SMTP Extension traffic control extension defining the
wait=time tag (based on ID1) and its extended multiple
usages.
ID3 - SMTP Extension for Greylisting, official IETF formulation
of the framework, its implementation and its retry=
and expire= tags (based on ID1). I have no problem of
renaming retry= to wait= tag, and if it makes sense to
reference ID2 for Greylisting usage of blocking delays.
It seems to me ID2 and ID3 are very different since as I understand
there is no enforcement in ID2 where its a critical part for ID3.
Please I am adding the optional "expire=time-expire" tag for those
that need it. ID3 is not the place for adding the suggestions for
loading limiting, server limits. That would idea I think under a "SMTP
Traffic Control" ID2.
Overall, with the different ideas discussed and suggestions for
structured text information, I think it would ideal to begin a ID1
that defines a base protocol formatting of new structured text
information for all current considerations and the future. I think
this can have a very positive value to improve the dynamic SMTP
client/server communications in an optional, backward compatible and
very flexible and somewhat unlimited way.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
jabber: hector(_at_)jabber(_dot_)isdg(_dot_)net