David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 11:20 -0400, terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com wrote:
Valid point.
With more thought, you are correct, sorry.
Good. Some are rather disingenuously still claiming not even to see
that.
If on the eve of global SPF adoption you suddenly want to 'reinvent' the
forwarding problem, which has existed and has been well documented from day
one, then be my guest; but please do not ask me to play along.
It is the responsibility of this working group to enable
interoperability between sites; we must not _simultaneously_ publish a
requirement for such new mechanisms and permit sites to assume that
the same mechanisms are _already_ deployed. That would be extremely
irresponsible and foolish.
A solid argument. But it is also putting the cart before the horse: you
cannot wait for the world to improve until you jump aboard yourself. You
must be the change you want to be in the world, as the Mahatma would say.
And I can tell you this much: with everyone publishing ~all policies, and no
forwarding ever breaking anywhere as a result (nor ever have any fake mail
"fail" anywhere), no one, anywhere, will ever implement the necessary
rewriting schemes, either. There must, at some point, be an incentive to
change, lest you be dealt out of the game. What you propose, is taking away
that incentive. And I propose to decline.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx