IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 17 February 2012 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6046111E8079 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:23:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.64
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T2nzhA3bKM21 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E299411E8076 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:23:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1HLNIGi007631; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:23:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1329513803; i=@resistor.net; bh=BXTbTIT67WAep6/7P1nEgu9WNpyxqlhzj8GG8ZtvdWI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Qu+6ZTeXp0KvcVgDWpfyE4B8iZ7xs51Bm+D8wFw3XwTf78C6JRj4/4wgitSH8QQ5K XB9LDldRd9cHLnOkxu7ghpSRG8fJZ4NhpXghOWqyn8TcSvJ9dfwDhqmuUbQiSpKSvz v4H/0+2y1rkm7iRvEtnzJtm1mL2DOMl8z/m1rVcY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1329513803; i=@resistor.net; bh=BXTbTIT67WAep6/7P1nEgu9WNpyxqlhzj8GG8ZtvdWI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=uLFbbA5PvldeJTdfF6tq1biPkOpXkuTHx0OtMIka8W83Ake8Yq7zjmHWmMp4mLzd4 J6xY0n0pXcsRV78EotuMoHS4NLoN1ZxGL7/b3QC66VVvxDfJ5XvzxmfgFiMSpciX00 zO4Hx2GQzayrsFFrkJYF1DuU75zgKYWFiIUpPrM0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120217131852.0a8c4248@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:21:52 -0800
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120217202633.73871.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120216201037.0901f720@resistor.net> <20120217202633.73871.qmail@joyce.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:23:27 -0000

Hi John,
At 12:26 17-02-2012, John Levine wrote:
>Quite possibly, but what would a client do differently?  Remember
>that the client is software, it only looks at the code, not the
>text.  My clients treat all 4xx the same, go away for a while,
>until the aggregate while gets so long that it gives up.

The SMTP client does not have to do anything differently as it on 
looks at the code.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email