[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing the implicit MX issue

2008-04-17 03:15:58

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

This decision raises a somewhat larger issue, namely whether deferring to implementor desires is always the right thing to do. Compared to implementers, there are many more users and system administrators. For the reasons discussed earlier and alluded to below, they now lose in having poorer error handling and more abuse. I thought standards writers and implementer were supposed to serve end users (and maybe the large number of people having to install and manage things), not the other way around. Maybe this is another instance of the oft-bemoaned absence of operators from the IETF discussion. End users seem to be even more absent, even indirectly.
Agreed. I see this as a big step in the wrong direction. No one has given a good reason for doing it other than 'its similar to what happens in IPv4', 'it makes life easier for people with awful internal procedures' and 'it saves us 3 lines of code in our software'. None of those are good enough reasons IMHO, given all the reasons not to do it.

It might end up not being a big deal except for mail server administrators at big companies or ISPs, but it *might* be a massive deal, and given the easy change we could make now, I think it's a big opportunity being missed.