IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 03 February 2014 01:14 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 D21391A014E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 17:14:41 -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 1OdBJj0tITvc for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 17:14:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BDA21A014D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 17:14:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id a1so11472384wgh.16 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:14:35 -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=ofs/J9PLB1q0mh07b5Fb1IMORPcNn5i+0ZswiQg291g=; b=pSPTweTn7HNghO3K8JdQBbexIHqJPkJPUW/L8p3PjLqERlqvA/XwkNQzONbkWOsPKs gUn9U3SHs4WhWGpD6m8f8B1QabDcVkjKU6TQ4rodCCesVrqRWzjqEHAOtx9nj0AKrhm3 Y962jLzjWaAhN2cyGRbsmLCYinGcwG+g7VrvbYIsRlpaEheUT9VCFr/WQVQ+auu4oQgL u0bj7SOcza4AWrLcUmpnK3cBiLmFrlYKOyXff9N4k7MIraVu6Cvie5J/PH15paO5Xn1e l/PBg9vX/HthliQTTLpg6V0lYL2tEbm49eqi+W9jEf4bpU3Xq1UCc5DABXkH3tuAXj4l w/cg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.175.66 with SMTP id by2mr6505wjc.59.1391390075183; Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.98.41 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Feb 2014 17:14:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52ED3F4B.6060803@isdg.net>
References: <52ED3452.7040007@isdg.net> <CAL0qLwbW=xsrLn_CFg41vy3JRO58cZX7omUhi06HeeGiYuinrw@mail.gmail.com> <52ED3F4B.6060803@isdg.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:14:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZcrDqpES+JLzTO1ppq9eOenG10=VCg8p15UxV6wwTJXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013d19f82ce8e104f1763f09"
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: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 01:14:42 -0000

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> wrote:

> For our own implementation and deployments of WCSMTP.
>
> No collections from other packages was made from a client standpoint.
>

Does anyone else have current or planned implementations of this draft
they'd like to discuss?


> Many Greylisting servers do issue a time hint in their 45x greylisting
> responses in various forms.   We can only speculate if other clients are
> parsing this non-standard information and leveraging it for their outbound
> mail retry scheduling logic.  Our client parses for the common format seen
> out there, including the proposed format.
>

Can you point to some of the server implementations that do this?  Are they
following the syntax in this draft?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email