[Top] [All Lists]

Re: deferred RCPT responses

2004-04-03 18:06:39

--On Saturday, April 03, 2004 18:29 -0600 "Eric A. Hall"
<ehall(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com> wrote:

On 4/3/2004 5:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

In this context, this statement is equivalent to "you have
been deliberately wasting our time by expecting the proposal
to be taken seriously".

On the contrary, I worked on it because an interest was

Sorry.  I didn't mean you individually.  I meant to suggest that
going down this path is a waste of everyone's time if your
explanation/ context is correct.  Whether what you have been
doing is time-wasting, constructive, or a more technical, and
topic-oriented rather than individual-oriented, version of
troll-feeding might or might not be an interesting discussion.
But I would encourage you to think about it.

On the other hand, I may have overreacted:  exploring these
ideas to the point that we can determine whether or not they are
feasible and whether or not they are useful is generally
worthwhile, or at least educational.  The important issue, then,
is knowing when to stop.

Do you want to see it progress? I haven't heard a proposal for
getting around the state limits, just reasons why none of them
will work, but correct me if I'm wrong.

My guess, which I tried to say in the previous note but
obviously didn't succeed in being clear enough, is that the
_value_ of this extension isn't sufficient to justify either
attempting to change the state machine or even to justify much
more energy in figuring out how to do that.   I.e., for me, the
answer is "you are not wrong".

But the opinions of others may differ.


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