And deploying ESI prevents this?
At 09:11 PM 7/10/2001 -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Hi Valdis. Hi Kieth.
I was speaking of the heuristic to invoke vectoring, not the
application semantics. Please re-read. Apply sarcasm where
appropriate.
The point is, deploying a working OPES means that people will have
more opportunity to stick their noses where they don't belong, and to
ignore application semantics on the grounds of "well, the vectoring
technology takes care of that." Just think - with OPES, anyone with
half a clue (or less) and a OPES server can interpose their newest,
niftiest 'value-added service' into your application data stream.
What fun.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 11:47:57PM -0400,
Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:01:40 PDT, Mark Nottingham <mnot(_at_)mnot(_dot_)net>
said:
> > Interesting... seems to be a message generated by an intermediary
> > that used a heuristic to vector the message and effect a
> > transformation... Unfortunately, that transformation was performed
> > without proper knowledge of the semantics of the application
> > protocol, incurring unintended and undesireable results.
> >
> > Maybe if we standardized the heuristics and the means of vectoring,
> > the transformation engines would magically behave in a more
> > responsible manner... or maybe it would just encourage the deployment
> > of transformation engines.
>
> Umm.. Mark? The heuristics *are* standardized.
>
> It's called "Thou shalt send this crap to the SMTP MAIL FROM: address".
>
> Of course, if people manage to botch something THAT simple and
> well understood, how will we ever deploy a working OPES?
>
> /Valdis
--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology