Re: Why are we here? What are our goals?
J C Lawrence <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.ng |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:52:38 -0500 Hector Santos <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, both concepts are unacceptable by me for any new design. If > you want to have a primitive protocol with one command "DATA" or break > it into two, HEAD and BODY commands, great! Propose it! I have less > of a problem with that. But that HEAD must all the TRUSTED > relationship and network tracing concepts we must deal with. If we assume a discrete HEAD/DATA distinction at the transport protocol level, with a HEAD definition that supports a cheaply determined binary quality: auditable/unauditable (for its audits we're really talking about rather than traceability) then you both get what you want: Hector gets the technical ability to (cheaply) refuse all email that has an unauditable HEAD and to then deal with his auditable mail as he wishes, and Len has the technical ability to choose which types of auditable/unauditable email he accepts. Of course such an approach requires auditable binding of HEAD data to DATA contents, but that is tractable. Hector: Would you have a problem with such an approach, and if so, why? -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. [email protected] He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.