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

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Mon, 03 February 2014 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 DA9D41A021B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 05:44:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 i7weZQ7UEMC0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 05:44:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ntbbs.santronics.com (dkim.winserver.com [208.247.131.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7881ADE87 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 05:30:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=2156; t=1391434237; h=Received:Received: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject: List-ID; bh=Oj6wpwXmxeUubAi4ijyb0OI6jds=; b=oeLGXvkOfiQUT/mbmkqe NmwMJzrf8qSdgyiHQu1W8bcV8z295Cjt+pVFoD9M8/G/0l+NPqNDXpv1cWra7izi zgpUcg9qq2WaQ6wXLLIxA+aEcqeT6TVggNMhw0EYLRNnflrStTqVKhE7H/StbYZg BdRdErgUJI7/zBwakEEoAmw=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:30:37 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=pass policy=all author.d=isdg.net asl.d=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from opensite.winserver.com (beta.winserver.com [208.247.131.23]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 716720502.10379.4356; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:30:36 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=2156; t=1391433637; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=hvsD9H/ J61i3hvPVg+77xKK9uE7Y4qCIh7UQs8JEmOM=; b=lbVKJRf1Sqe8U8ME1NqACt4 xQzOrYRMk/zZFeKJsiO1Xr8iPeOGxyAi8/w4JwXOF1QhExelvKJLV1ZzjIlhggVj s9Mw1r1q+wkOH/dJN1mNeZPhDayfzP6FBp9mEAvsbMCPReTwxAuGvPprUiunRvJo 6NiaAS8dQXBVs2UaPQs0=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:20:37 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([99.121.4.27]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 163016631.9.2096; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:20:37 -0500
Message-ID: <52EF99F9.1070908@isdg.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:30:33 -0500
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@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>
In-Reply-To: <01P3WDM2RDYG0000CD@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 13:44:30 -0000

On 2/3/2014 1:57 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> 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?
>
> We see greylisting as something best done by a milter, so we're unlikely to
> implement direct support in our MTA. That said, a milter has the ability to set
> the SMTP response string to anything it wants. The only problem a milter would
> have is changing the EHLO response to include the GREYLISTING extension. AFAIK
> that is not a milter capability. We have a way to do that outside of milter but
> I don't know if other milter-supporting MTAs do.

The service extension keyword was made optional

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-santos-smtpgrey-02#section-3.1.1

The intent was to offer a method to expose a retry=time-delay (the 
blocking time) via the keyword and not depend on servers adding and 
clients parsing of 45x response text.


>>> 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?
>
> milter-greylist has the ability to return SMTP responses containing the retry
> time. The format is settable, so it should be able to generate something that
> conforms to this RFC.
>
> There are various other milters that support greylisting; I don't know about
> their capabilites.

Yes, for servers, getting the response in is the easy part. The 
benefit is for the client to leverage it for their existing 
rescheduling logic.  Those that do should see a benefit in minimizing 
retries and delivery delays.


-- 
HLS