Hector,
Tony may take a different position, but my response to this
suggestion is the same as my response to all sorts of other
anti-spam or spammer-conditioned proposed changes to 2821:
Write a separate proposal, as an I-D, to make the change. Get
it approved as a Proposed Standard. Get it implemented and
deployed. When the timer runs out, get it approved as a Draft
Standard. Do all of this efficiently enough that, by the time
discussions of 2821ter come up, your proposal will be of full
Standard maturity and deployment so that it can be folded in.
For 2821bis, this would be a significant change to a
long-established piece of protocol. It is too late, both
procedurally and, IMO, technically.
john
--On Thursday, 15 November, 2007 17:58 -0500 Hector Santos
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> Is there worth to this?
>
> My recommendation for 2821bis is to include some insights
> about or how variable strategies" plays a bigger role these
> days and in fact, might be almost an "necessity" for improved
> modern operations these days.
>
> Even if one didn't want to incorporate GL into their SMTP
> receiver, the default sending retry strategy (if it matches
> the current specs) has to be reconsidered due to increased
> remote GL systems and the growing probability of hitting such
> a system.
>
> In short, they might be need to reconsider the recommended "30
> minute" retry interval, at least for the 2nd attempt.
>
> I recommend a 5 min retry on the 2nd attempt, with a fall back
> to their normal interval after that.
>
> --
> HLS
