Re: Bounce/System Notification Address Verification

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:55:04 EDT, Hector Santos said:
> From: <Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu>
> > Given the number of times you've said "We do it this way, therefore the
> > rest of you should"
> I have NEVER said such a statement. You can't prove it.  I never have and
> NEVER will because it isn't my character to do so.  If that is how you wish
> to read it, I can't help that. But I have NEVER, EVER, EVER told anyone in
> my entire software and product engineering and development carries "to do it
> may way."
So you *havent* offered your insight and suggestions to your engineering team,
and suggested that they are the way to take the product?  If you haven't, what
sort of leadership *is* that?   I have people coming into my office all the
time looking for design advice, precisely *because* they will get told exactly
how I think things should work.  Presumably my suggestions result in deployable
systems, because they keep coming back.

> I am providing my own insights. That's it.  It is very valuable insight
> whether you care to believe that or not.
And that *isn't* telling the rest of us on the list that you believe it should
be done that way?  And why are you telling *us*, if you don't even tell your
own engineering teams? ;)

Also, a large portion of your "insight" is only valuable *because* it's a fringe
non-standard way of doing things.  Something that is of benefit to *your*
several thousand customers, when they comprise less than 1 percent of the 
millions
of mail servers and close to a billion (or are we over that now) e-mail users,
will probably *NOT* provide any benefit once it becomes widespread enough for
black hats to code a workaround for....

> > with little or no consideration of what circumstances
> > caused the codifying of standards sections you find inconvenient,
> I am not BREAKING ANY STANDARD whatsoever.
Read *carefully* - I didn't say you were breaking a standard, I said you find
sections of the RFCs inconvenient without thinking about why those sections are
the way they are (usually, it's because other people have other configurations 
than
what you and your customers have....)

> BUT with 100% without of doubt, no SMTP level false positives that did not
> have a meaningful reason.
OK.. So you *do* on occasion bounce valid mail because you feel like it.

> Keith is filtered in a black list - an administrative level policy.  Instant
> notification conforms with US ECPA provisions.
OK.. So you filter Keith...

> Finally, this isn't going excuse all the defamation and tort attacks and
> call for censorship attacks I have experience from Keith. I won't have a
> problem proving this.
and complain when Keith suggests the same for you.  And I don't remember Keith
bringing up "defamation and tort attacks" - that seemed to be your mail.

pgprvx4HgBDSj.pgp
Description: PGP signature