At 5:22 PM +0100 5/20/03, Jon Kyme wrote:
> At 4:25 PM +0100 5/20/03, Jon Kyme wrote:
>Sorry, what? Your justification for not doing BCP is that it's
>"non-trivial" to do it on the software you've chosen?
There are far more reasons to choose a piece of software than just
it's external interface.
I can't imagine a good technical reason for picking software that makes it
practically impossible to do the job to the same standard as BCP, given the
choice that exists.
Well, I replied off list because I didn't think this was on topic.
But I'm just pointing out that we're looking at this from a problem
of how mail systems interoperate with each other. When you're in a
company buying a mail system, your concerns are:
- ease of maintenance
- ease of use for users
- functionality for users
- how it works with other systems
The order may vary, but the last one is almost always going to be
last. Furthermore, it *looks* like a check-off item. That fact that
some mail systems "don't play well with others" doesn't come out
until it's *way* too late.
Anyway (back to the original point), Hotmail seems to do better than Yahoo
on the specific issue (response to RCPT TO <non-existent-rcpt>) we were
discussing. It's clear that some operators can do this on very large
distributed systems. Others can't - or won't.
It could well be a "won't". By deferring the reject until after the
DATA command you make it very difficult to probe for valid addresses
to spam.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg