Yakov,
First, I agree. I am very happy to see people are beginning to finally see
this. I strongly believe this is the right course of action.
Second, wow!
You don't know how tickled pick I am to hear you say this. :-) You know
since day one I have been a big advocate of first focusing on clearing up
the inconsistencies, ambiguities and relaxed provisions in the SMTP
functional specifications before any proposal can even begin or have a
change to work. I repeatedly stated and illustrated the usage the CBV, not
as a competing LMAP proposal, but as a proof of concept of what's inherently
wrong or inconsistent with the specs.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yakov Shafranovich" <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
To: "IETF MXCOMP (E-mail)" <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:32 PM
Subject: Choice of identities: compromise?
Am I sensing a compromise that we should first concentrate on RFC2821
stuff (HELO and MAIL FROM) with an eye toward possible RFC2822 headers
in the future (past San Diego)?
Yakov.
P.S. And whatever happened to MTA MARK and IP identity?