I consider that discussion closed, so I won't bring any new arguments,
but I think a short explanation is in order.
On 2007-04-23 05:29:02 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 23 April, 2007 01:09 +0200 "Peter J. Holzer"
On 2007-04-22 16:46:06 -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
What are you basically implying that we have a problem with
clients not supporting the 25 year specification
No, we are concerned that clients which are supporting the 25
year old specification will be rendered non-compliant if your
interpretation is formalized.
Peter, while I agree, let's be a little careful.
I thought I was, mentioning that the RFC(2)821 wasn't entirely clear at
least once per mail.
Assume that one reasonable person can read the text as saying both
Assume that another reasonable person can read the same text and
I do assume that, and in fact it was my aim to convince Hector that
there are different ways to interpret RFC 821 and that his
interpretation is not the only valid one (I also think that his is a
rather far-fetched interpretation, but that was secondary to my
argument). In that I have failed (he still refers to software not
supporting his view as "broken"). Since you obviously also missed what I
was arguing about, I must have been rather unclear. For that I
PS: Thanks to Tony for analyzing some widely MTAs and adding facts to
_ | Peter J. Holzer | I know I'd be respectful of a pirate
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | with an emu on his shoulder.
| | | hjp(_at_)hjp(_dot_)at |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Sam in "Freefall"
Description: Digital signature