On Sat, 09 Feb 2019 12:53:09 +0000, Ð?Ð¸Ð»Ñ?Ð½ Ð?Ð°Ð»Ð°Ñ?Ð·Ð¾Ð² said:
I propose inserting in the draft under section â??3. SMTP Service Keywordâ??
When the service keyword 250-GREYLIST is announced, it indicates that the
client SHALL keep the IP address on retries.
So riddle me this: What then happens to an e-mail if it's next attempt is from
a different IP address? (Quite possible if the outbound client is a cluster of
machines with a shared mail queue, or an HA pair that's fallen over to the other
IP address, or....) Perhaps this only merits a SHOULD rather than a SHALL?
â??If a SMTP client is rejected by the Greylisting Server during the
session, the client SHOULD NOT attempt to start a new transaction
during the same session and SHOULD immediately issue a QUIT command
to end the session. â??
I do not like this text, as it is against the idea of accepting one/few RCPT
per transaction, and telling all the other recipients â??421 â?¦ retry=0â??.
Agreed on that - it means that if there are multiple mail items queued for
a delivery to a host that has been unreachable for some amount of time,
the client can't complete running the queue - even if the remaining messages
would not have been greylisted.
And if you were planning to greylist all the remaining messages, why aren't
we using a simple '250-GREYLIST retry=00:10:00' in the EHLO response?
The PRDR-after-DATA proposal will make progress, if providers are willing to
switch the work on dealing with spam folders to the sender. As user I want
to deal with Spam folder, and this switch makes it possible.
And as a user, if the sender is doing the spam management, you *can't* deal
with your spam folder anymore. Which will totally suck if the sender decides
since the mail got greylisted, it must be spam - and it's a false positive on
an actually important mail like a bank notification. Remember - spam folders
exist precisely because spam detection isn't perfect.
ietf-smtp mailing list