Re: WG to close ; Re: Make CSV backwards compatible with SPF? (new revisions)

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 09:03, Alan DeKok wrote:
> Douglas Otis <[email protected]> wrote:
> > A technical review was not something SPF/Sender-ID advocates
> > desired.
> 
>   In professional fora, it is entirely inappropriate to make
> assertions about other people's desires, capabilities, and the like.

You are right.  You were willing to engage in these discussions and I
should not have made such a generalization.  Sorry, my frustration was
showing in this statement.

> > SMTP is a well crafted battle-scarred solution with a few odd bits
> > broken.
> 
>   It does not warrant calling an infrastructure with a 30-year history
> 'broken'.

I don't think this sentence was describing SMTP as broken in a broad
sense, meaning it does not work.  There are aspects within SMTP that are
broken.  It is safe to describe excusing an authentication failure of
the EHLO name as broken.  I view this piece of information is analogous
to the post-mark on a letter, as it tells you where the message was
sorted for delivery.  Currently this information is often bogus owing to
RFC2821 permissions.

-Doug