Re: [apps-discuss] draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp into APPSAWG?

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 02:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@qualcomm.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 2F03711E8132 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:20:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <2qEojMg2Hc9a>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.322
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.723, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_RAND_1=2, 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 2qEojMg2Hc9a for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1337811E8117 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:20:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=rg+ietf@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1321237235; x=1352773235; h=message-id:x-mailer:date:to:from:subject:content-type: x-random-sig-tag; z=Message-Id:=20<p06240626cae62b67a097@[172.21.1.9]> |X-Mailer:=20Eudora=20for=20Mac=20OS=20X|Date:=20Sun,=201 3=20Nov=202011=2018:20:31=20-0800|To:=20"Murray=20S.=20Ku cherawy"=20<msk@cloudmark.com>,=0D=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20"apps-discuss@ietf.org"=20<apps-discuss@ietf.org> |From:=20Randall=20Gellens=20<rg+ietf@qualcomm.com> |Subject:=20Re:=20[apps-discuss]=20draft-kucherawy-greyli sting-bcp=20into=20=0D=0A=20APPSAWG?|Content-Type:=20text /plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-ascii"=20=3B=20format=3D"flowed "|X-Random-Sig-Tag:=201.0b28; bh=AfAupWm962vn/PHoRHcEdJDm8ZGWXXCOXxJyCbpYrXA=; b=hyjA4oBkr0NRMNwDcyosDwNtAvIxz8SSp7aiRfbEu4Bn5LN9gB8QRq5r S/u678TaIPPOVBEI+tHcfJ/sgtMeiaZbuIS1Yni39tipCuptmoVqSoCaP F2KtJU4h7DSiLm7GpVZlJ6h4DIt99eWRTq8schq1EtIlAuJLnaE55z02B g=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6529"; a="134957412"
Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2011 18:20:34 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,502,1315206000"; d="scan'208";a="112678642"
Received: from warlock.qualcomm.com ([129.46.50.49]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 Nov 2011 18:20:34 -0800
Received: from [172.21.1.9] (myvpn-l-dyp000696dys.ras.qualcomm.com [10.64.135.172]) by warlock.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id pAE2KV3X017223; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:20:33 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240626cae62b67a097@[172.21.1.9]>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:20:31 -0800
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp into APPSAWG?
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:20:36 -0000

At 5:56 PM -0800 11/13/11, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>   As discussed in the APPSAWG meeting just now, I'd like to see if 
> there's interest in adopting this into APPSAWG for processing. 
> There wasn't any resistance, but a few people provided the 
> following useful input towards its development:
>
>   -          Should it be BCP or Informational?

I'd say it depends on how prescriptive versus informative the text 
ends up.  I think it would be fine as Informational, and can still 
point out that some means of implementing greylisting can mitigate or 
worsen the ill effects (for example, some implementations greylist 
based on a tuple of [IP, MAIL FROM, RECPT TO], while others use only 
the IP address; the former method aggravates the delay issue, to no 
real benefit, since any given client side will or won't retry, 
regardless of the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO).

>   -          It should discuss how not to do greylisting as well as 
> how to do it
>   -          Some collaboration with the ASRG is suggested in terms 
> of collecting data about which approaches work best, etc.
>
>   And of course the main question is: Is this appropriate for APPSAWG?

Seems fine to me.

--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
#Random Tag
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Democracy is a government where you can say what you think even if you
don't think.                                       --Winston Churchill