Re: Operations requirement: no hop-by-hop

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Operations requirement: no hop-by-hop


> We are trying to design a *next-generation* protocol, not a temporary
> patch. It is not useful to say "I have a requirement that spammers
> will probably get around after I implement it."

This is what throws me off here about the discussions here.  Why bother if
the basic issues that are for the most part fundamental to the problematic
issues in the industry are not address?

In any case:

Why can't a system has some "basic fundamental requirements" ones that makes
"authentication" process a requirement.  This will certainly solve and
refine all kinds of requirement/design issues.

Yet as you know, this does not exclude the idea of anonymous access.

Just consider FTP.  Authentication is a requirement with a method for
"anonymous" access.   How systems implement that FTP client/server design
comes in many different flavors - but the basic requirement is client login
concept - none, relaxed or strict/strong.

-- 
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com