IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-smtp-ipv6-00

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Tue, 15 November 2011 21:28 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 9EE7C21F85A1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:28:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.308
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.308 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.291, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 sG8qmQAEEWhU for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:28:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F4121F858D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:28:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:28:21 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:28:20 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-smtp-ipv6-00
Thread-Index: AcyjvhbUOatle0zDS0qalvxhQPMb6QAHyxNA
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15070@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20111115025746.26808.qmail@joyce.lan> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1111151057160.5322@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <01O8G0UJD0VS00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01O8G0UJD0VS00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.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] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-smtp-ipv6-00
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:28:25 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ned Freed
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:40 AM
> To: Tony Finch
> Cc: sm+ietf@elandsys.com; apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-smtp-ipv6-00
> 
> The point in the dialogue at which the 4yz is returned can also be a factor.
> It's one thing to retry on a different A after getting a 4yz host
> temporarily unavailable response to EHLO; it's rather different to
> retry a different A after getting a 4yz user is over quota response to
> the final dot.

I thought the theory was that you only try different As or lower-precedence MXs if you fail completely to make an SMTP connection.  That is, if you get any 4yz reply at all, you stop there and requeue; if you get any 2yz or 5yz reply at all, you're done.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email