>> Hector Santos wrote:
>>
>> I just don't get it. Is this idea even allowed in IETF RFCs?
>> An IETF open standard-track proposal requiring a
>> non-standard business solution in order to function?
> Eliot Responded:
> While it may seem suboptimal, this is reality for mail systems
> today. They do all sorts of things that are non-standard to get
> mail out the door. And it happens in other areas, like NETCONF
> where the data model isn't standard. In practice you can't
> manage a system with SNMP without enterprise MIBs...
Eliot,
I was referring to interface points or system interfacing. While
the back end data may be proprietary in some particular protocol, the
system interface typically must be a standard in order to be useful.
We don't have standard interfacing with reputation systems.
Furthermore, I find it problematic from a stragetic business and
product development standpoint that we will be stuck with little
choices in this area and quite frankly, the potential is really
high that the current vendors may not be around in the future
and/or alter their own business model that it breaks current
operations.
Again, we been there before with this "batteries required"
concept and it was a costly situation for us when we designed a
product around a non-standard interface solution and the 3rd
party vendor was non-responsive to customer concerns and support
issues and eventually they went out of the business.
That said, what are the reputation "Adjudication" hooks that SMTP
vendors will be able to choose from and offer to customers?
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html