IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses

Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk> Thu, 06 March 2014 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=01423F3141=paul@pscs.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5FA1A0211 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:11:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 CY8i59_LXRhf for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:11:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pscs.co.uk (mail.pscs.co.uk [188.65.177.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A57F1A0084 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:11:30 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: mail.pscs.co.uk; spf=none; auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.auth=paul
Received: from lmail.pscs.co.uk ([82.68.5.206]) by mail.pscs.co.uk ([188.65.177.237] running VPOP3) with ESMTP for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 17:11:06 -0000
Authentication-Results: lmail.pscs.co.uk; spf=none; auth=pass (cram-md5) smtp.auth=paul
Received: from [192.168.57.132] ([92.27.146.145]) by lmail.pscs.co.uk ([192.168.66.70] running VPOP3) with ESMTP for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 17:11:23 -0000
Message-ID: <5318AC34.3050402@pscs.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:11:16 +0000
From: Paul Smith <paul@pscs.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <CAL0qLwYUv=MZuk6Qcjsmu5up4b-TfyK5nQKYwWT=bxKnAt3_2g@mail.gmail.com> <C2F81A71-943C-4579-8CB2-13A2D93D32FD@blighty.com> <CABa8R6uMxqVOfqjzVLCDghkrFDFDxNMNGjO-ESmuWFA50WTXEw@mail.gmail.com> <01P53GW9IZIG00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1403061328280.10443@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <01P54804IE0G00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5318AA71.5050500@alameth.org>
In-Reply-To: <5318AA71.5050500@alameth.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-Sender: paul
X-Server: VPOP3 Enterprise V6.6 - Registered
X-Organisation: Paul Smith Computer Services
X-Authenticated-Sender: paul
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/v8q0oNP8Df7UxopMlQtDIdaYELI
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Per-Recipient Data Responses
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:11:36 -0000

On 06/03/2014 17:03, Carl S. Gutekunst wrote:
> Ned Freed wrote:
>>
>>> Rather than discarding I think it is better to file into a 
>>> quarantine or
>>> spam mailbox. This gives recipients a better way of dealing with 
>>> questions
>>> about missing messages, without involving the postmaster.
>>
>> Also an option, and one we support, but in my experience rarely used in
>> practice.
>
> Dropping the message into the quarantine is the "last choice" action 
> for disposition conflicts on the Postini and SonicWALL proxies. It's 
> also one that gets calls to customer support. ("I set the policy to 
> reject this, how comes it got into my spam folder?")

This is my issue with PRDR.

If a user set 'discard if x,y,z', and the sender doesn't support PRDR, 
we have to either:

- discard the message silently (ugh)
- send a bounce message back (backscatter)
- quarantine the message (support issues, as above)
- fake PRDR by temp rejecting the message, then on the next retry only 
accept one recipient at a time (double-ugh)

At the moment we just don't give the user an option to 'discard'. Their 
bad messages get quarantined - but that's what they know will happen, so 
at least it's deterministic, even if not exactly what the user wants. 
Having a 'sometimes discard, sometimes quarantine' option would be nasty 
from a user's PoV.



-


Paul Smith Computer Services
Tel: 01484 855800
Vat No: GB 685 6987 53

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email