Barry Leiba wrote:
It was a rhetorical question. �I don't think its necessary and IMO,
I'd be very surprised to find that mention of "cron" in an RFC is
"unprecedented". Maybe I'll download the RFC set, have Google do a
word index on it, and see.
What did you find?
It is unprecedented to see such specific product or special tools like
this for general "global" oriented technical documents like protocols
or mail software based RFCs, and if so, it a good and "fair" document
would cover all audiences, not just unix. Unless the RFC is
specifically for some environment, it would be unprecedented for a
document like this MLM I-D.
But thats me, it would be my style to consider the whole and not just
the part of it. Like the first google search:
with RFC3164 showing cron/at.
I don't see that "automated mail robot with an MTA" is right at all.
But I see what you're getting at, and I'd support a change such as
� � � The author can be a human using an MUA (Mail User Agent) or
� � � an automated process that may send mail (for example, the "cron"
Unix system utility).
I was hoping to use something more general, like automated process,
but somehow got lost in this need to specialize (hmmm, maybe they will
like the word mailbot).
I still fail to see how "cron" is related to mail? its a scheduling
tool, like "at" in Windows. At least show both. But I still fail to
see why here, for author, and nothing else. In theory the same
"scheduling" idea applies to verifiers and/or signers, i.e. scheduled
a process/thread to eyeball queues to batch sign and/or verify mail.
We can also do event drive work that runs spawns processes/threads to
process mail queues. Talk about slippery slopes. Anywho, I just
don't get it. Very different mindsets/thinking here. But hey, if
people think it helps unix people....
Hector Santos, CTO
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to