----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Elvey" <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com>
To: "MXCOMP" <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: plan for april 5th xmpp conference...
Hector, I don't think either of your messages present any valid argument
against 2822 checks.
Wow! Really? None whatsoever? If you honestly believe that, then maybe I
shouldn't be hanging around here. I certainly hope you are not speaking for
everyone here, but I know that isn't the case. Or is it? Just wonderful!
1)OF COURSE unwanted email can and should be refused before the header
or body get sent where possible. I've written an I-D to make that
possible with Sieve, FYI!!!
Ok. Nice. But what does Sieve have to do with SMTP?
Again, if you are use to systems that require POST operations (I'm sure
that is the case now that I see you like Sieve), that you probably can't
relate to more dynamic systems that are in existence - i.e, real.
2)I don't think most share your opinion that all email that isn't
strictly SMTP compliant can be safely refused without refusing email
wanted by the intended recipient. Your system's refusal of emails from
me for reasons I don't understand come to mind.
Matthew, that was 1 time in what? NOVEMBER and YOU still saying this 3-4
months later? You continue to repeat this all over the net. I asked you to
prove it showing logs and refused to do so.
Obviously, this is now a personal shot and I don't appreciate it. I'm tired
of it. Please stop it.
3)What we're doing is changing what strict SMTP compliance means*. That
can include a requirement relating to 2822 headers.
As I hang around seeing all that is going on, I keep thinking this is just
par for the course and it is just a provocative thought excercise and that
eventually common sense will prevail.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com