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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 15 March 2021 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 36CB63A0B68 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.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 LeREmAY0yArM for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from plum.mrochek.com (plum.mrochek.com [172.95.64.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3AEC3A0B62 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RWP49I8OV40077V6@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-smtp@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1615837327; bh=E9dWB6xTHvp4w3h204FV90pPa/dhPuUaf/e7vDx/fkg=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=kD9rCr27RnK4m84fYgjYFuWt1ShA6UO3ZROuPyd5qe3p5rIrLKsiXNxzOCN1nXH/u 6L2N5zZv9B3d8hQZLmgEr0yca6vBUEBK1KPLNNi4CkNIWVr2ee9RlwVtfIp75RXbGR MfXW5Nr3IPwcxM8o6DDZPmuqQunc9xoVNukGyxMk=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; Format=flowed
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RWJORF3ZF4005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-id: <01RWP49G2CZM005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:29:20 -0700" <1945b86f-7c29-b68e-30e9-e08a62a8dcef@dcrocker.net>
References: <77B21231-47EA-4CA6-A665-5880B6A54D4D@wordtothewise.com> <20210312203224.F3739701E4C5@ary.qy> <01RWOUM3HK0Q005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> <e6e5d166-ded5-b6c0-db9a-57c44e8bd92a@dcrocker.net> <01RWOX4A2CZG005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> <1945b86f-7c29-b68e-30e9-e08a62a8dcef@dcrocker.net>
To: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/dPOL59f_jN57s_cvQDWs8j_GyNg>
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: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 19:47:12 -0000

I think that's one decisively in the "thumbs down" column. Pity we don't have a
reaction mechanism to indicate that ;-) ;-)

				Ned

> On 3/15/2021 8:58 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
> > However, I did have another idea here: It would be possible for a server to
> > indicate that a limit change has occured through the use of a special
> > enhanced
> > status code - probably limited to ones on successful repsonses. This would
> > instruct the client to reissue EHLO at the next opportunity to obtain
> > updated
> > limits.
> >
> > I think this is overengineered and opted not to include it, but I'd like
> > feedback from others on the point.


> I'll amend your assessment:  I think this would be /extremely/
> overengineered.

> Specifying mechanisms for highly nuanced behavior is worthwhile when
> there is a well-understood problem, widely viewed as being substantial,
> and therefore, there is good motivation for adopting the added complexity.

> Most of the time, enhancement mechanisms, like this, already have
> significant adoption barriers.  So keeping them as simple as possible is
> to be highly preferred, over making them more nuanced.

> d/

> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net

> _______________________________________________
> ietf-smtp mailing list
> ietf-smtp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp