Re: [apps-discuss] draft-santos-smtpgrey-02: SMTP Service Extension for Greylisting Operations

Derek Diget <derek.diget+apps-discuss@wmich.edu> Mon, 03 February 2014 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <derek.diget+apps-discuss@wmich.edu>
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 70E771A0248 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 14:25:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.75
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, FB_WORD1_END_DOLLAR=3.294, FB_WORD2_END_DOLLAR=3.294, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 zSfJfDMuNF4T for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 14:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx-tmp.wmich.edu (mx-tmp.wmich.edu [141.218.1.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40201A015D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 14:25:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Received: from spaz.oit.wmich.edu (spaz.oit.wmich.edu [141.218.24.51]) by mta01.service.private (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 64bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0N0F008DCY9MET10@mta01.service.private> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:25:03 -0500 (EST)
X-WMU-Spam: Gauge=X, Probability=10% on Mon Feb 3 17:25:03 2014, Report=' WMU_MSA_SMTP+ 0, TO_IN_SUBJECT 0.5, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, FROM_EDU_TLD 0, SPF_NEUTRAL 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __STOCK_PHRASE_7 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_IN_SUBJECT 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __URI_NO_PATH 0, __URI_NS '
X-WMU-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.395186, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2014.2.3.221514 - Mon Feb 3 17:25:02 2014
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:24:58 -0500
From: Derek Diget <derek.diget+apps-discuss@wmich.edu>
X-X-Sender: diget@spaz.oit.wmich.edu
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <01P3WDM2RDYG0000CD@mauve.mrochek.com>
Message-id: <Pine.GSO.4.62.1402031703320.2762@spaz.oit.wmich.edu>
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>
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: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:25:05 -0000

On Feb 2, 2014 at 22:57 -0800, Ned Freed wrote:
=>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> wrote:
=>> > For our own implementation and deployments of WCSMTP.
=>> >
=>> > No collections from other packages was made from a client standpoint.
=>
=>> Does anyone else have current or planned implementations of this draft
=>> they'd like to discuss?
=>
=>We see greylisting as something best done by a milter, so we're unlikely to
=>implement direct support in our MTA. That said, a milter has the ability to set
=>the SMTP response string to anything it wants. The only problem a milter would
=>have is changing the EHLO response to include the GREYLISTING extension. AFAIK
=>that is not a milter capability. We have a way to do that outside of milter but
=>I don't know if other milter-supporting MTAs do.

FYI, we use Ned's software and have the following defined in our 
ORIG_MAIL_ACCESS mapping (based on the Comms Suite Greylisting Wiki page 
at 
<https://wikis.oracle.com/display/CommSuite/Implementing+Greylisting+by+Using+MeterMaid>)

! Check the source IP address only using the first three octets in the 
! string passed to MeterMaid, sender (canonicalized via X-CORRESPONDENT 
! mapping recursion lookup), and recipient in MeterMaid's greylist 
! table.
!
! If the call to greylisting() returns success, then Messaging Server 
! should return a temporary rejection. If the call fails, then the 
! greylisting check has passed and other access control checks can continue

  TCP|$@*|$@*|$D*.$D*.$D*.$@*|$@*|SMTP$@*|MAIL|tcp_mx|*|l|*|true $C$[IMTA_LIB:check_metermaid.so,greylisting,greylist,$0.$1.$2|$|X-CORRESPONDENT;$3||$4]$N$X4.7.1|Temporary$ greylist$ rejection$ -$ retry$ in$ retry=00:03:00$ $E


Which causes the following SMTP response:

  451 4.7.1 Temporary greylist rejection - retry in retry=00:03:00 : RECIPIENT@RECIPIENT-DOMAIN


I don't have any data on how many clients then following our suggestion.


I know we are less than a grain of sand on the mail flow beach, but 
thought that I would speak up as one receiver. :)

-- 
***********************************************************************
Derek Diget                            Office of Information Technology
Western Michigan University - Kalamazoo  Michigan  USA - www.wmich.edu/
***********************************************************************