Pete Resnick wrote:
- I *do* want this document to be used as a club against proposed
protocols, especially when they have no implementation base, if those
protocols differ significantly from the architecture *without any
explanation*. When someone comes along and writes a protocol or
implementation that assumes that the RFC5321.MailFrom is the author of
the text of the message, I want to be able to say, "Look dude! That's
not what RFC5321.MailFrom is for. Go read the bloody architecture and
get your mind right, or give me a long interesting explanation about how
the state of the world you live in is different than what the
architecture says and convince me that your use is reasonable."
Architecturally (flow chart wise), the document is fine, but I think
the better "billy club example" for what clearly sticks out is the
high potential when someone says based on it:
"Dude, aren't you sending a DSN?"
or
"Dude, aren't you using Sieve?"
"Dude, why did your Sieve process reject my mail?"
and you says:
"Dude, we am not using any of those."
We had a support call just the other day that touch base with it. A
company who walks, talks, smells like a spammer who didn't know about
protocols and methods but was asked by a receiver to give more details
showing why he was being blocked by them (no 200 response was what we
finally find out). What details did he want when they both didn't
even understand that no one was answering the door. Yet, they were
throwing buzz words out like DSN, at each other and at us. What he
got from our smtp server was an exhausted 72 attempts retry bounce
message.
It also curious to me what he blurted out.
"I've been told for the last two years or say, reputation
is becoming more important. Is there anything we can do
in the software to improve it?"
So is the document architecturally dated for this new era of this sort
of mindset?
Don't get me wrong, the document is useful and needed. My only real
nit (if there is one) is that it can be used as a checklist even
against the well established, maybe not by your definition of "well
established," but established nonetheless.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com