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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Tue, 15 November 2011 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 CB4BE21F86A0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:43:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 XVagMC8ynj+H for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:43:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B003B21F869E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:43:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O8G0UKPQRK015A4Y@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:43:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O8DV7Q11A800RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01O8G0UJD0VS00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:40:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:59:11 +0000" <alpine.LSU.2.00.1111151057160.5322@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <20111115025746.26808.qmail@joyce.lan> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1111151057160.5322@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: sm+ietf@elandsys.com, apps-discuss@ietf.org
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 17:43:13 -0000

> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> >
> > In step (9), you say "If a transient failure condition is reported,
> > try the next MX RR" which looks wrong to me.  If you get a 4xx, you
> > requeue the message and try it again later.

> This is a point of repeated disagreement and there is no accepted
> consensus. When they get a 4yz, some SMTP implementations will immediately
> re-try delivery on the other hosts, and only queue the message for later
> delivery if none of the hosts will take the message.

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.

				Ned