You keep raising the IETF reference. I keep pointing out how
inappropriate and unproductive your raising it is. And then you claim
that *I* am hiding behind it???
Unlike you I can differentiate members of the class from the class
itself. As in "Some Republican Presidents are corrupt - example
Richard Nixon, cannot be extended to 'All Republican Presidents
are corrupt - counterexample Lincoln'.
Oh, by the way. Perhaps you have missed the organizational affiliation
of the IRTF? If you detest this particular community so much that you
must constantly remind us of your displeasure, how can you be
productive?
Yeah, yeah, we noticed as you might have seen if you read posts
rather than just responded to them.
Again, tourists have always been a liability in the IETF, and
tourists with the idea they are the expert being the biggest
liability of all. So far you have done nothing but preach and pick
fights with anyone who challenges your holly writ.
1. In response to my citing the classic core/edge distinction, along
with some example of its implication, you posted:
HBP> It is empirically easier to deploy changes at servers
than in mail clients.
And I stand by that observation, having spent much of the past
few years being involved in the area and having knowledge of
what is happening in the industry.
It is a fact that a new client deployment will take three years
minimum. I have spent a great deal of time on that issue trying
to deploy PKI for the US federal government. Those are the client
product cycles these days. If you want to dispute that, feel free.
On the other hand as I stated previously I have had meetings
with the main ISPs, in particular the JamSpam consortium. They
are very interested in deploying server based measures. The
timescale there being six to twelve months.
I cannot go into greater detail on the matter for reasons that
should be obvious. An empirical fact need not rest on public
data, I have given you the information that is public.
I have seen no evidence presented by yourself for the classical
argument. I know that argument, I know many of the people who
originated it and the context in which it was proposed. It is
not very applicable to SMTP because SMTP is simply not an end
to end protocol as the IETF has chosen to deploy it. There are
a lot of intermediaries in the transactions.
The problem would be very much easier if we did have a purer
realization of the classical model. But that classical model
arose in part from observation of the complexity introduced by
this sort of stuff.
So please provide some guidance about the proper way to ask you for
substantiation to claims you make.
Again, the antiquarian basis you claim for the assertion you make
does not make proof any less necessary. You are the one who made
a blanket assertion and refuse to answer counter-examples.
Having had a classical education I seem to remember a lot of
practices of that time that I would not recommend to the group.
I cannot see how examination of sheep entrails is going to
be relevant to spam, pig maybe, sheep no.
Phill
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg