[Top] [All Lists]

Is it really FUD? [Re: "Header Reordering", yet again]

2005-05-31 15:10:26

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Lilly" <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Cc: "David MacQuigg" <david_macquigg(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: "Header Reordering", yet again

You have been told about as plainly as possible that you are unlikely
to see specifics because of NDAs.  And your response has been to say
"nobody answered" and -- having complained of a bruised ego after
what appears to have been very professional responses to your messages --
accusing others with "this is FUD".

How does a NDA stop the viewable presence of bugs and its end results in
mail software?

I hope this doesn't bruise your ego,  but you would seem to be the type who
is a heavy cyberspace participating techie end-user and typically the first
to be yelling non-compliance and rudely putting anyone down who doesn't come
close to agreeing with you.

The fact is, it is YOU who seems not to be listening or EVEN wish to give
anyone outside of a small click of people, the benefit of the doubt,
regardless of any experience they may have.

The fact is, sysops do not sign NDAs.  If the software is broken and causes
uplink and downlink problems, no NDA will ever stopped it from being public
knowledge.  And even if there is a NDA, it comes with the understanding the
vendor is will be fixing the problem.

The fact is you can't come up with one instance this is a problematic,
especially with a concept where a Received-SPF: could come into place.

The simple matter is that you have been told that your assumption of
particular ordering is invalid, you have been provided with documentation
in the form of IETF specifications (RFCs) which clearly and distinctly
say so, you have been assured that in fact reordering is known to have
taken place, and you have been told why you are unlikely to be provided
with an example.  Yet you persist with an insistence that there is some
requirement forbidding reordering.  One gets the impression that you're
just not listening.

This seems to be your modus operandi when you can't prove your point.

But it is YOU who is not listening.

Bruce, you don't design software on the presumption that headers could be
out of order or reordered, or what have you. Why would you presume that a
NEW header will be added randomly or in the wrong place?

Really, it seems to me you are a power end-user who wants to use his MUA for
everything and uses this as the basis for his mail operation reality.

In regards to SPF,  the only headers that should be concern is that of the
last transaction.  At best, the SPF analyzer could have:


Now why would anyone presume NEW SOFTWARE,  out of the gate could be out of
order with the rest of the message/trace headers is beyond me.

Again, this all seems that you are probably thinking in terms of your MUA
software.  That is the only thing that make sense.

Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.