Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-04

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:29 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting-04
> 
> Looks pretty good.  A few minor points:
> 
> In section 3, I think that you should point out that a in a successful
> greylister, all the regular correspondents will be whitelisted, so the
> only mail that is delayed is mail from an IP that has never sent mail
> before, or sent mail so long ago that it's fallen out of the whitelist.
> In mail systems I've used, the vast majority of mail comes from places
> on the whitelist, so after a training period (which you can fake by
> watching traffic before you turn on the greylister and seed the
> whitelist with all the addresses you've seen) only a small proportion
> of mail should be affected.

Sure, a description of the "steady state" would be a reasonable thing to add.

I'll schedule that for the next revision, probably late next week after MAAWG.

> In section 3 and again in section 9.2, it refers to the size of the
> database.  My total database is under 40,000 entries, including 92
> IPv6 addresses.  I expect a larger system would have a larger database,
> but it would be a pretty feeble server that would have trouble with a
> table even ten times that size.  My manual whitelist has 62 entries,
> mostly CIDR ranges, probably half of which are stale but there's not
> much incentive to clean it out.

That's good news.  I wonder if we can get a couple of other greylisting sites to provide their database sizes too so we know for sure that this is fairly consistent.

Thanks,
-MSK