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 21:59 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 278141A012C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:59:23 -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 jpKxlbVhRHL9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D91F1A0167 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id f8so8511wiw.15 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 13:59:17 -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=edhJ6zm1pqtJwjtltnbmDLZSYtJc6mBoyQmOonou5Vw=; b=I8JURWIXkbvFaFHnpNRoIwmKB203wcYM3MS2VZ3qrsJY/knVKnpLqdBP4anCeeZk3J L+KtTndb7puSD+Th3UUHVWG1U1WV/GTGW6HRHjMqGRyOC5lSWcnlo0rmT33fzLtQZYOC tM8no1LfJL+K0XSMId2DYFsEOH9imQzfD5xxi59NbuFb5WH9ZFFQYqzR/y4E7en0rWkT GtGsUwWTSVErWDSRnR1AcEGsk1FLuVXPy8LADDKjm/Unu8KBgIbXSth4DjdFwSPFKHi7 d9j3bwLgZteJWUqKMf+YPufJ3ZG+h/DfFwqvO8el576Y203bZ1aLZ/lxM8np7sqwwkDp G0mA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.12.233 with SMTP id b9mr1932277wic.8.1391551157079; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 13:59:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.90.132 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:59:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52F15142.3080009@isdg.net>
References: <20140204193312.56742.qmail@joyce.lan> <52F15142.3080009@isdg.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 13:59:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZHzrOZS7=M4aWD6MbZXVCZLe3y7LdoiGdRkfChCQpWUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c241146798c004f19bc05c"
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 21:59:23 -0000

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> wrote:

> Keep in mind NULLMX proposal is not a problem and we about to take on this
> work as a standard.  In fact, if NULLMX, why not SMTPGREY while we are in a
> SMTP CHANGE mode mindset.
>
>
Two points on this:

(1) The issue is not the current mode (or mood) of the working group, but
rather (a) whether there's room in the WG for this new work (currently
there is not) and (b) whether there is adequate support for accepting and
working on it.  The nullmx draft is still in an open call for adoption,
although so far there clearly appears to be support for working on it in
appsawg.

(2) It's not necessary for this document to be in a "done" state or close
to it to be adopted.  It might need a lot of work, but it only needs to be
a good starting point for what the WG will ultimately produce via the usual
consensus process.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email