IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] draft-santos-smtpgrey-02: SMTP Service Extension for Greylisting Operations

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 04 February 2014 06:13 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95921A0366 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:13:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZIzDZm4-mn6K for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:13:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D346D1A0360 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:13:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id n12so3963722wgh.4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:13:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9z9t+Mv8r577yIyLjAWoeNTKSO0A88CrjiE6utS/9mA=; b=1EyPCbojJHkzLVM3MsvwFaLCaEdXK1OjM4XtmKK5g6TDiAb4RArChHESTp5EHVqE5D wbvLfftJGLxmozPeBHRgoCq5LYZJePTMvYJZ6l/36t9b6jGiTr4gMs3Nz/GOLGcl5H/1 FuZXzNqQ4FmGQSGfv6c3IEuZbjTdgCj02Bg5LP0iFSuCI3nbRayKLi1BDHup4MskEnIx rb+z0BqzONghyH2B/iIV6dOHzDa+dMyrMlDLvD/9zkLixCFABZgr12KkZc4pq/VNUS+V s7+xvwP+sYHng+12p80/MjwJjHahjBk9evZH5Gtf++efT0EwWtdwATFng2fWlVRa4r2+ 33DQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.119.168 with SMTP id kv8mr457859wjb.41.1391494383103; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:13:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.90.132 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:13:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <01P3X2CJ52RA0000CD@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <52ED3452.7040007@isdg.net> <CAL0qLwbW=xsrLn_CFg41vy3JRO58cZX7omUhi06HeeGiYuinrw@mail.gmail.com> <52ED3F4B.6060803@isdg.net> <CAL0qLwZcrDqpES+JLzTO1ppq9eOenG10=VCg8p15UxV6wwTJXg@mail.gmail.com> <01P3WDM2RDYG0000CD@mauve.mrochek.com> <52EF99F9.1070908@isdg.net> <01P3X2CJ52RA0000CD@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:13:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZ6J2N8MZKtVF1P9jHxjj0_LvYgP4HUtm6Vkd2Ux4G4Fg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01176b1d69736404f18e8825"
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-santos-smtpgrey-02: SMTP Service Extension for Greylisting Operations
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 06:13:05 -0000

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:

> And finally, we have to take the least astonishment principle into
> account. For
> whatever reason some sites obsess over the predictability of message retry
> intervals: Any time they see what they regard as unusual behavior in this
> regard, they get very excited and demand an analysis be done. Our support
> people then have to waste time digging in to what invariably turns out to
> be
> have a perfectly reasonable explanation: a queue backlog, an unresponsive
> destination, bad configuration setting, etc. etc.
>

So is it your view that undertaking standardization work here would help
you with this pain point (predictable retries), or make it worse (something
new for everyone to understand)?

If you can't tell, I'm fishing for some answers to the predictable "Should
APPSAWG consider taking on this work?" question.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email