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 19:30 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 C8AC11A01BE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:30:34 -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 nMoJnv8eKKX5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:30:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA53E1A0167 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:30:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id x55so4700666wes.32 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 11:30:31 -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=19kijzNNexVXH3OKJMJatMPpf/vfzGo5OSyzi9HOIMo=; b=Q6WjVwnMu75azmcMVdiVuG3rDIcxRSkQoE8asWGFAZeQJ8DZfWWak+4HQeFJ/Brucf 9D6WdoIC2jyIBVl6taSWzBjUVw0E4KiNc3wi+UCatLTfINWv5dM2T8Uhx3H3LhZpDQZo B/Q1aIMKiIQKx11pTgipZdhz0KpZFgMjlCLAlbtp+H5/bANEprSmFIWDlwuYHVYJl1aC YFwbZcbTtFZNXtj6gwWGitMIw0gL1NmdKa+HUMzPlFxQiMd/L1kKrwtG/EUzlVHrD2Gs bySnhv3mtlPI9vJLJ3OgZMMEV8lBjgcsh++Ud7y24edkafDnjYUB9Yzm2WzTt77SgGg3 o5+g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.35.36 with SMTP id e4mr13873830wij.8.1391542231909; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 11:30:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.90.132 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:30:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <01P3YD9Y1GLK0000CD@mauve.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> <52EF99F9.1070908@isdg.net> <01P3X2CJ52RA0000CD@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAL0qLwZ6J2N8MZKtVF1P9jHxjj0_LvYgP4HUtm6Vkd2Ux4G4Fg@mail.gmail.com> <01P3YD9Y1GLK0000CD@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 11:30:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbe4i--4LStP3_gORU=ZBg3TyMDx1mm6xwU_u0ZmZ2mOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f64352e6c4f2c04f199ac5a"
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 19:30:35 -0000

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:

>
> And while I agree that our time is valuable and should not be wasted, I'm
> not
> sure I'd go as far as to say that WGs should only ever take on work when
> the
> production of a standard at the end is practically guaranteed. Sometimes
> crippling problems only emerge after close scrutiny. Mind you, email
> is sufficiently mature and we have sufficient experience with greylisting
> that such an outcome is unlikely here. But we've been surprised before.
>

My concern is more that we've taken on work in which interest has petered
out leaving us with nearly dead documents.  One way to avoid doing that is
to favor taking on work that addresses a real pain point for more than just
a couple of people, and for which we can find people dedicated to seeing
the work through to completion, and for which there is ample support (e.g.,
implementations, for something on the standards track).  I believe
something lacking that kind of support should really be looking at the ISE
or AD sponsorship rather than APPSAWG.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email