IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] Greylisting BCP

Daniel Feenberg <feenberg@nber.org> Tue, 18 October 2011 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <feenberg@nber.org>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082BA21F8D7B for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 rUYpDI1tqL29 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.nber.org (mail2.nber.org [66.251.72.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE6B21F8DC1 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nber7.nber.org (nber7.nber.org [66.251.72.41]) by mail2.nber.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9IJgPAF071549 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:42:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org)
Received: from localhost (feenberg@localhost) by nber7.nber.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id p9IJgOMa003611; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:42:25 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: nber7.nber.org: feenberg owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:42:24 -0400
From: Daniel Feenberg <feenberg@nber.org>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14AC6@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1110181539140.27058@nber7.nber.org>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14AC6@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-79550136-1409308532-1318966945=:27058"
X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux Mail Server 5.6.39/RELEASE, bases: 20111018 #5493725, check: 20111018 clean
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Greylisting BCP
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:42:30 -0000


On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> 
> After some chatter inside MAAWG and on the ietf-smtp mailing list, I’ve started an
> outline for a BCP on the practice of greylisting.  The main purpose is to explain
> what it is, discuss the pros and cons of its variants, and give some recommendations
> for implementation and configuration for a few example installations and policies.
> 
>  
> 
> The draft (which is currently only an outline) is here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp/
> 
>  
> 
> Comments welcome.

Where should comments go? I have a question really, though it might be 
construed as a comment. Why do greylisters match on the (sender, 
receipient, MTA) triple rather on just the MTA? Isn't it nearly certain 
that if an MTA returns for one sender/receipient pair, it will return for 
any pair? So that keeping track of all three seems unnecessary and 
increases the probability of a message being delayed. What am I missing?

Daniel Feenberg
NBER


> 
>  
> 
> -MSK
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email