[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 3: EHLO parameter

2007-04-01 14:40:51

John C Klensin wrote:
Given the complexities, controversies, and resulting
instability of community consensus about abuse-related reasons
for rejecting mail, anything that touches that space should be
omitted from the document.

Drop the text.

For the record, as editor, I'll do whatever consensus emerges
that I should do.

mais oui.

However, I hope that folks keep in mind that reality tends to override working group consensus.

However...  The specific name != address prohibition originated,
I believe, with 1123 after significant discussion.  It was
discussed again in DRUMS and reaffirmed.

Even as recently as DRUMS, the world was a very different place. And remember that the exercise of 1123 was to synchronize with reality.

And that's all I am suggesting here, but by a minimizing approach, rather than trying to create new language.

There are many policy-related issues that rfc2821/821 could have chosen to make normative statements about, but didn't. That it chose to make a normative comment about the action to take, or not take, regarding a particularly validation exercise, steps into territory that was reasonable at the time, but now sits rather wildly in the middle of a very message, unstable, very energized/polarized topic.

It need not be anywhere near that territory, in order to do its basic job.

So I'll merely stress for the group:

As folks consider what to do with the text, they should a) make sure it creates no new violence in the document, of course, and b) reflects reality by virture of matching existing practise.

That's why I suggest completely dropping the text, rather than trying to tweak the normative status.


  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking

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