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

[Richard Clayton <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, Ned Freed
<[e-mail]> writes

>> as I observed before -- don't expect much more than a generic statement
>> (which comes down to "sending N good emails is the most you can expect
>> to be able to manage") from such systems. Anything which revealed the
>> current view ("actually, you've pretty much exhausted our patience")
>> just is not going to happen (IMO)
>
>I don't really understand the concern here, 

Some bad senders start by sending good email and then, once their
reputation is established, send bad email. It is generally thought to be
unwise to give any clues whatsoever as to how well this process might be
going... (to what extent the machine learning system has been fooled)

>and more importantly, how to address
>it. 

It is inherent that you cannot -- so mailbox providers who operate in
the space where this is a significant issue are not going to provide any
fine-grained data whatsoever -- just generic values.

I take Laura's point that good senders can deduce the upper limits --
and hence providing data about those upper limits at the start of the
session has a small amount of value (if only in ensuring that sessions
close smoothly and fewer exception logging event are generated)

-- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755