Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03.txt

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Wed, 15 February 2012 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
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 7728721F8625 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:02:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.594
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, 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 C+2RJTumk+ik for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4BF21F85E4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:02:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:02:21 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:02:19 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:57:25 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03.txt
Thread-Index: AczsLEaGMAx1aU1cTmCWPLRDWNDxDQAABC+w
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DDA0@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120215215318.8897.58368.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120215215318.8897.58368.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03.txt
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: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:02:22 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:53 PM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03.txt
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working
> Group Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title           : Email Greylisting: An Applicability Statement for SMTP
> 	Author(s)       : Murray S. Kucherawy
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03.txt
> 	Pages           : 13
> 	Date            : 2012-02-15
> 
>    This memo describes the art of email greylisting, the practice of
>    providing temporarily degraded service to unknown email clients as an
>    anti-abuse mechanism.

This version takes into account various recent feedback, some of which came from members of the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group, a group external to IETF but with which we have a liaison relationship.  MAAWG is meeting next week in San Francisco, and there may be another round of feedback from that which I'll bring to APPSAWG as well.

It also changes its intended status from BCP to PS, because it's really an applicability statement.

Comments requested.  If it appears to be stable between now and Paris, I'd like to request that we start WGLC during the Paris meeting.

Cheers,
-MSK