On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 09:03, Alan DeKok wrote:
Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org> wrote:
A technical review was not something SPF/Sender-ID advocates
desired.
In professional fora, it is entirely inappropriate to make
assertions about other people's desires, capabilities, and the like.
You are right. You were willing to engage in these discussions and I
should not have made such a generalization. Sorry, my frustration was
showing in this statement.
SMTP is a well crafted battle-scarred solution with a few odd bits
broken.
It does not warrant calling an infrastructure with a 30-year history
'broken'.
I don't think this sentence was describing SMTP as broken in a broad
sense, meaning it does not work. There are aspects within SMTP that are
broken. It is safe to describe excusing an authentication failure of
the EHLO name as broken. I view this piece of information is analogous
to the post-mark on a letter, as it tells you where the message was
sorted for delivery. Currently this information is often bogus owing to
RFC2821 permissions.
-Doug