Re: [ietf-smtp] [Emailcore] Proposed ESMTP keyword RCPTLIMIT

Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com> Tue, 20 April 2021 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <laura@wordtothewise.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ECBA3A19D3 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.237
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=wordtothewise.com
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 QzxOtObOxncu for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.wordtothewise.com (mail.wordtothewise.com [104.225.223.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09343A19AF for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.227] (unknown [37.228.231.27]) by mail.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6D079F149 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=aardvark; t=1618910232; bh=GGj5Cfh4MVQRXKi4aM5kN1YaBsVD7j2pZ43OF2LDyKo=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=LDc6z3q+f/LA5uwB0rrEEi92Tq4gkR0V0icuGYCT3mce29YOKFsb22B7zNT1/FNjb sGbeIbTnoW0oQefpcr002afaDnxkqUTA0gQzt1imOTXCBDl4IOF4w7DuuQ5SFyh8oU 4elMt3/ccvHvGa9Z40EYm2nIgZkoEMr8P5oWcmtQ=
From: Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_28F46CC7-365F-4B88-94FB-17B42FC83BCF"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:17:09 +0100
References: <cone.1615844513.220592.51342.1004@monster.email-scan.com> <20210315234648.563C0708B340@ary.qy> <CAO=DXp-+fJwsNegzu3zgwDLtCcSF104AUF=i+_GMgSYVBAKjWg@mail.gmail.com> <01RY24IJ225Q0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAO=DXp-VSxeTsWZFAms7WX-jonkSiyGgKV5T_17VGhq6bcsMdg@mail.gmail.com> <cone.1618877363.380527.55051.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <cone.1618877363.380527.55051.1004@monster.email-scan.com>
Message-Id: <F8AC11B4-1C30-4DE6-AE70-F91994EE7539@wordtothewise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/3w_w86vFtm9qt0yTTvK0UuNvBhc>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] [Emailcore] Proposed ESMTP keyword RCPTLIMIT
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:17:25 -0000


> On 20 Apr 2021, at 01:09, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@courier-mta.com> wrote:
> 
> George Schlossnagle writes:
> 
> 
>> The common limits we see in the real world (in order of most common occurrence/impact) are:
>> 
>> 
>> Messages per connection
>> Recipients per message
>> Simultaneous connections per sending IP (this would be my number one suggested add)
> 
> This is surprising: that messages per connection is more commonly checked than everything else.
> 
> I would expect that a receiving server would prefer reusing the same connection, to send consecutive messages, than have the sender establish a connection, send one message, then tear it down.
> 
> A long time ago that was Qmail's well-known bad rep: its simplistic implementation, how it created a connection for every individual message. So, a dozen messages to the same domain resulted in dozens of concurrent connections, all to send one message and disconnect.
> 
> I see nothing to gain from forcing a sending server to artificially limit itself; how after every N sent messages it has to close its socket, and reconnect again. What is that supposed to accomplish? I don't get it.

It’s a limit that was implemented more than a decade ago by some of the highest volume receivers around. I don’t think we have to understand why they did it - if even the folks who made the decision are still around. [1] We can just say: this is commonly occurring behavior and it makes sense for SMTP to document it and have a way to explain it. 

I don’t think a discussion about why or if it’s sensible will make any difference. The companies who are closing the connections after X number of messages (5, 10 and 20 are all used) are not likely to either defend their technical decisions to the IETF or change their behavior after a decade and at least one whole infrastructure rearchitecture. 

What we should be doing is figuring out how to make these limits more clear to senders. 

laura

[1] In at least one case the decision maker passed away a few years ago. 

-- 
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
laura@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741		

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog