ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-crocker-email-arch-06.txt]

2007-03-11 08:41:07


ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

This document is supposed to be documenting and explaining the formal
architecture we have, not creating new formalisms on the fly.

I thought it's supposed to be a minimal abstraction of the architecture
as it exists in common practice, not only the architecture as it's
reflected in RFCs.

The term "standardized" appears in the document rather too often for it to be a
description of all the stuff that touches email that's out there. But assume
for a moment that's not the case - the main problem would be that unless we're
at least somewhat constrained to what's been formally defined the document will
inevitably become so amorphous and general it will be useless.

Some RFCs reflecting the pre-spam email world like
2821 are putting it mildly harmful in an environment with 90% of all
mail traffic considered as "unsolicited" (putting it again mildly).

Who needs a description of the old and known to be broken architecture ?

Now you're changing the subject - whether or not what's described is old or
broken in your opinsion is entirely irrelevant. What's needed is a decription
of the core Internet email service that's in use. We spend way too much
time talking past each other due to a lack of such a description.

                                Ned

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