>
>OTOH, it seems to me that it's been said Ad Nauseum. Where feasible I
>agree it's better, but there are operational frictions that will impede
>this approach in some cases.
>
>
What I believe that we've discovered is that this isn't nearly simple as
some people hoped. Doing as little up front as possible so that you
can get operational experience is almost certainly better than guessing --
especially when the guessing wrong is a likely outcome. In this particular
case, I dooubt there will be harm because receivers will always have an
incentive to make better decisions (and hence the desire to upgrade).
With 15 years of design/build/operations under my belt for some Global
500 companies, being the 'wrench turner' or 'blue-collar guy' for what
comes out of these/our groups, I agree whole-heartily with what you
have said. I would like to add, in my opinion, put as many buttons,
bells and whistles on it as you can, I will find a use for them... or
not... at least I have a choice. Right now I feel like I am in a
Russian supermarket...
Regards,
Damon Sauer
Senders are Recievers too.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html