Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

Covering the stuff Dave didn't address...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:30 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03
> 
> Here are some comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-03.  The title
> of the document is "An Applicability Statement for SMTP".  If we ignore
> that greylisting is a antispam technique that reuses one of the
> properties of SMTP, that might be appropriate.

I think a specific use of a TS to implement a technique falls within the definition of an AS.

> In Section 3:
> 
>    "The most obvious benefit with any of the above techniques is that
>     spamware does not retry, and is therefore less likely to succeed,
>     absent a record of a previous delivery attempts."
> 
> Some "spamware" do retry nowadays.

I'll put "generally" before "does".

> In Section 4.2, I suggest using "SMTP client" instead of "client".

I'll change it in the title of the section, rather than making that substitution everywhere in the section.

> RFC 5598 should be a normative reference as it is mentioned in Section
> 1.2.2.

OK, though I think it's a bit odd to make an Informative document into a normative reference.

> The draft is well-written.  It is ready for a Last Call.

Thanks!  Hopefully we get one more good round of feedback and then we can request WGLC in Paris.

Thanks for the review.

-MSK