Subject: [ietf-smtp] BCP or similar on list validation by partial SMTP session

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Sep 2013 15:23:26 -0000

Some mailers attempt to clean their address lists by going through the
list and doing EHLO, MAIL FROM, RCPT TO, and dropping the ones where 
the RCPT TO fails.

We all know why this is abusive, and why it doesn't work (greylisting,
wildcards, reject after data, etc.) but is that written down anywhere?

R's,
John

---

From: Martijn Grooten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 12:45:42 +0000 (UTC)

> wildcards, reject after data, etc.) but is that written down anywhere?

If it is, it's not in a place that's easy to find.

But much as I think it is bad practise, do we really all 'know' this, as 
you suggest?

Martijn.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Sep 2013 13:29:13 -0000

>But much as I think it is bad practise, do we really all 'know' this, as 

Well, there are clearly some listwashers who are trying very hard not
to know it.  That's why it'd be nice if there were something we could
point to.

R's,
John

---

From: Martijn Grooten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:55:37 +0000 (UTC)

> to know it.  That's why it'd be nice if there were something we could

Sure. What would you imagine such a document to say other than that if you 
need your list to be washed, you shouldn't have ended up with such a list 
in the first place?

(That question isn't meant to imply that there isn't sound advice you can 
give. I just can't think of anything.)

Martijn.

---

From: "Carl S. Gutekunst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:32:45 -0700

> to know it.  That's why it'd be nice if there were something we could

Mayhaps you're referring to the "Email Validation: Pros and Cons" 
session at the San Francisco MAAWG?

(Yes, I believe some of the panel were honestly looking for mechanisms 
to identify bad actors, not mechanisms for cleaning lists.)

<csg>

---

From: "John R. Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Sep 2013 20:15:21 -0400

> Mayhaps you're referring to the "Email Validation: Pros and Cons" session at 
> the San Francisco MAAWG?

Sort of, if the advice there were written down in a public place.

> (Yes, I believe some of the panel were honestly looking for mechanisms to 
> identify bad actors, not mechanisms for cleaning lists.)

Sometimes you just can't have everything you want.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Sep 2013 00:59:41 -0000

>need your list to be washed, you shouldn't have ended up with such a list 

I suppose it could endorse permission passes to try to resiscitate a
bad list.

Or just mail to the feeping list, and do proper bounce processing in
the first place.

R's,
John

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:25:05 -0700

> I suppose it could endorse permission passes to try to resiscitate a

Do you mean stuff like a monthly re-opt-in?  If not, can you explain?

> Or just mail to the feeping list, and do proper bounce processing in
"proper" bounce processing isn't always possible, but then again the whole
fake RCPT TO thing isn't infallible either.

But I agree that writing this down might be good, and I also agree that a
document that says "don't do that" isn't great; "here's how you should do
it" is better.

Might MAAWG be interested in converting their work into an Informational
RFC, or maybe an Applicability Statement?

-MSK