IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 26 October 2011 15:42 UTC

Received: from hoffman.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9QFgvpV066803 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:42:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.13.5/Submit) id p9QFgvI6066801; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:42:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9QFgvHW066796 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:42:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from dhc@dcrocker.net)
Received: from [10.115.198.211] (62-50-223-232.client.stsn.net [62.50.223.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9QFglXo030957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:42:55 -0700
Message-ID: <4EA82A72.2050400@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:42:42 +0200
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
CC: "ietf-smtp@imc.org" <ietf-smtp@imc.org>
Subject: Re: draft-kucherawy-greylisting-bcp
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14BFC@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4EA6EE1A.5010804@qualcomm.com> <4EA7C3AF.1070402@dcrocker.net> <2188C106-043B-4A59-A09C-D88E7B17C307@network-heretics.com> <4EA8226D.80303@qualcomm.com> <4EA824AE.1060404@dcrocker.net> <4EA82851.6030005@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EA82851.6030005@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

On 10/26/2011 5:33 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 10/26/11 10:18 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> 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...

You have just defined an interoperability criterion that includes all sources of 
software misbehavior, daemon sleep times, and anything else that can cause delays.


>    Greylisting is far more obviously a protocol
> with testable interoperability than is, say, RFC 5234 or 5322.

5322 and other format specs explicitly entail parsing and processing (and in the 
case of From: and Reply-to:, replying) by the remote engine.  That's essential 
interoperability.

In other words, formats are inherently bilateral.  Greylisting is unilateral.

The interoperability mechanism relevant to greylisting is the /existing/ set of 
SMTP mechanisms.  Greylisting is an indirect invocation of those mechanisms.

Again:  since my view is rubbish, please define an interoperability test for it.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email