From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com>
cc: moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Having them not able to receive their re-directed copies of virus
warnings is a feature, not a bug.
and presumably having them not be able to receive any mail from the
IETF list is a feature, also? or didn't you bother to read what I wrote?
If you had even read what you quoted, you would have seen that I
did mean that.
s > If they can't run their forwarders
right, or find people who can, then they should be spending time fixing
those problems instead of reading this mailing list.
what makes you think it's *their* forwarders that are causing the problem?
The error of using precedence:bulk for loop detection would be a problem
in "*their*" forwarders or the forwarders of "*their*" human agents.
It's not as if any other forwarders in the path might be using
precedence:bulk for loop detection in the situation we're talking about.
In other words, it's not naivete to say that if you want to play with
the big kids, you ought know what you're doing.
and perhaps, so should you.
p.s. perhaps you should see if Microsoft is hiring. it sounds like you'd
fit right in :)
You first, given the 8 copies I've received and the 7 that everyone
else has received of your
perhaps you should read RFC 1047 before you start pointing fingers.
but since you mentioned it, the message was still in my mail
queue with "error waiting for reply from DATA". I removed it.
That's another place where you might take your good advice about reading,
and discover that I later made essentially the point of RFC 1047.
In addition, given the timing of the duplicates of your messags and
what you say you found in your queue, you (or rather, the rest of us)
might profit by your reading RFC 1047 and applying some of the suggested
countermeasures. How short are your timeouts?
p.s. in case you missed it the point of my original message was:
it's fine to make suggestions for how to solve problems, but you might
consider that you don't understand enough about the problem to say for
sure that you know the fix. people have looked at using precedence: bulk
before and found problems with it. conditions do change, so maybe
it would work well enough now. but it has done harm in the past.
I got that point. Since today is not the past, and since you mention
no current problems, I don't see it's relevance besides chest thumping.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com