ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Why we should choose the RFC2821 MAIL FROM/HELO identities

2004-03-31 12:41:39

Yes, but can you be certain that's how they're configured?  Ability to
configure a client in a certain manner, and actual use of said
configuration are two different things.  Likewise, ability to 
route mail
through a preferred gateway and the existence and 
accessibility of said
gateway are two separate things.  

As I said in the original post:

Outlook and Outlook Express do not support an option for 
direct sent mail. Therefore it is highly unlikely that any
users have chose a non-existent configuration option.

You're either forgetting or ignoring those who use PDA-based MUAs,
cellphone-based MUAs, public-terminal MUAs over whose 

These configurations are even more tied to the routing through 
gateway model. Wireless mail applications almost without exception
route through a sever that performs compression features - like
automatically attaching the post replied to.

You also seem to be assuming that the action of an individual 
updating her
personal MUA scales well to an enterprise updating thousands 
to tens of
thousands of deployed MUAs.  It doesn't.  One takes five minutes.  The
other can take months, require policy review, deployment planning, and
so forth.

You have failed to demonstrate that the configuration you describe 
is at all significant in enterprise use.

Almost without exception enterprises of any size manage their
internet connectivity through firewalls. Direct sent mail is not
a commonly supported configuration.

I wasn't referring to the "geek community".  I was referring to the
users who don't fit your use categories.  See my comments 
above on user classes for clarification.  

You are simply hypothecating the existence of communities and
then saying that the onus is on us to prove they do not exist.

This sounds to me like you're saying that this group can produce a
proposal it sees no merit in.

No, if you see no merit in the proposal described in the charter 
then you don't belong in this group. 

I'm claiming
in the bit you quoted that the act of this group producing a proposal
at all implies that this group as a whole considers the 
proposal to have merit.  Are you suggesting otherwise?

Yep. I am saying that the question of whether the proposal has
merit should be debated on the IETF list which is the proper place
to discuss charters. 

Once the charter is granted the question of whether the proposal has
merit has been decided and is therefore out of scope.


Again, if you think that there is a way to support users who post 
from unregistered IP addresses in a protocol that authenticates
messages by the fact they originate from a registered IP address
then please state it.

To the rest of us it appears to be clear that to the extent that
the problem you cite is significant, it can be met by means of 
a dynamic registration protocol.

Simply restating the requirement does not help.

                Phill