ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: MARID Records and the standards process

2004-06-21 16:10:02


I understand this argument, but it still strikes me as utterly
unpersuasive.  For one thing, this kind of piggybacking only 
makes sense
when networks don't have unauthorized users, which means no 
zombies, and I

Clearly you do not understand the argument. If MSN is rate limiting
then my machine is going to be limited even if it is taken over
by a zombie.


I'd publish SPF saying that I use MSN, Comcast, and WBW.  I might even
sign up for a few MSN and Comcast accounts and trickle out a 
little mail
through them.  What reputation do I get?  The max?  The min?  

The reputation associated with the path used. 


In short, discontinuous changes of format seldom happen.

Indeed.  They only happen when they're useful.  You cited http as an
extensible format a little while ago, and I can't help but notice that
extensible http 1.0 is quite incompatible with non-extensible 
http 0.9,
yet everyone adapted because 1.0 has advantages that made the 
transition worthwhile.

That is a very bad example. I have personal experience of the issues
that 0.9 caused. People were still writing new 0.9 servers as late as 
1999.

Another example of what happens when this approach is taken is RSS.
There are so many RSS variants at this point that it will take ATOM
a long time just to sort them out.

This still boils down to "it might be useful".  

Such statements tend to depend on who they come from. When people like
Bob and Jim make them I beleive that they require very serious attention.

I have lots of swell
anti-spam ideas that might be useful, but I'm not going to 
tell people to
build standards around them until I have some experiece that 
demonstrates
how useful they are.

So you are instead going to argue for writing a spec that in addition to
not supporting them now will make the task of supporting them in
the future much harder.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>