On Friday, June 10, 2005 12:55:27 AM -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
If my use of "network" on this thread were meant as something different
from "local environment" in the draft, then combinatorial concern you
are raising would indeed need attention. And I wish I believed that my
use of the word were the cause of the problem on this thread.
It was for me. Reading the earlier messages, it seemed to me that the
specified behavior was broken. Then I went back and read the original
text, and saw that it said "local environment" and nothing about "network",
and it suddenly didn't seem so broken any more.
If you or anyone else has specific changes they are suggesting, I'm at a
loss to guess what.
I'm not suggesting any change. I initially had the same concern as Sam,
that there was a requirement to treat things as submission that really
weren't. But given a reasonable interpretation of "local environment"
(i.e. one that does not assume it always means "local IP network"), I've
managed to convince myself that there aren't any cases left where it
matters. So if the experts don't think this is a problem, then neither do
I.
the trick is to be careful in deciding when the evaluation is being
done: it is evaluated at delivery time, not at the time of acceptance
into the cmu.edu mail service.
And by the way, if folks want to get into this sort of detail about the
variations in email handling, I ask that they first make sure they are
familiar with:
<http://bbiw.net/specifications/draft-crocker-email-arch-04.html>.
It has gone through extensive development, specifically because these
kinds of variations turned out to take quite a bit more thought and
explanation that had originally been obvious. The community does not
have consistent, common language and definitions. Until we do, debates
about particular variations are sure to continue to get caught in
unstated assumptions.
Indeed. The answer to my concern appears to lie in the subtle but
significant semantic distinction between Relaying and Aliasing, which I
didn't understand before reading your architecture document. Having done
so, I can withdraw my comment on the "resolves to" phrasing, and replace it
with a different one:
Maybe the spamops document needs a reference to the email-arch document?
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf