Re: Why SRS really sucks

Am Montag, 27. März 2006 19:50 schrieb Tom Lahti:
> RFC's weren't made for you to break whenever you feel like it.  If
> that is their purpose, then why have them at all?  

Well, basically I can agree to this. However, we are doing in some 
circumstances pretty much the same Johann showed in his example. Not because 
we don't want to be complaint but we are simply forced to do so. 
During heavy spam waves and major virus outbreaks our MXes would be lost 
without this behaviour. We tried. But always to wait till DATA is done is 
simply impossible. I think RFC 822 and even 2822 were made in a time when 
Botnet spamming was not the problem it is today and just like a human 
language lives and evolves to fit the needs of it's time, protocols like SMTP 
should also be considered flexible as long as it doesn't do any considerable 
collateral damage. Which Johanns example does not.

> The reason for 
> RFC's is so that one can have _some_ basis for knowing what other
> systems will do.  "You are right and we know that" means: RFC's are
> useless for determining what another domain will do with a piece of
> mail, while at the same time pretending to "conform to them in most
> cases".  This isn't a matter of degree, its all-or-nothing.  You're
> either compliant, or you're not.

Indeed. But if I'm faced with the choice to even be absolutely compliant or 
watch our MXes die, I think I know what to choose. Especially since I 
believe, to be absolutely 2822 compliant means to be an open relay. 

Greetings...

Stephan