Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 10/26/11 10:18 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> On 10/26/2011 5:08 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
>> If it can be deployed and you
>> get get incremental implementation experience, it should be on the 
>> Standards
>> Track; it shouldn't be a second class citizen of being a BCP.
>
> Greylisting is not a protocol, according to any definition I know.
>
> There is no way to test "interoperability".

Rubbish. I can assure you that if someone implemented greylisting in 
such a way that "legitimate" mail stopped being delivered, because they 
set the greylist timeout too long or because they used a status code 
that everyone choked on or some other such thing that was underspecified 
in the RFC, people would say that the implemenation was not 
interoperating in the mailing transport/delivery system and that 
implementation experience dictated changes to the specification in order 
to improve future implementations (assuming that the spec failed to 
specify the correct parameters). Greylisting is far more obviously a 
protocol with testable interoperability than is, say, RFC 5234 or 5322.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]