On Sunday, April 26, 2020 5:53:36 PM EDT Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:26:09 -0700, Ned Freed said:
All this 10,000 feet stuff is starting to make my head spin. Let's please
focus on the specific issue that's been identified here, which is that
sites are turning off the DSN extension entirely on ingress systems
they believe they have to in order to comply with the specification.
The other big problem is that even if we chunk out an RFC that clarifies
that they *can* pick-and-choose which DSN events to react to on a case by
case basis, it's still going to take a decade before people actually do
something about it.
I think that's backwards. People already have done something about it and do
pick and choose. The question is if and how we should align standards to that
We could pick the not unusual for the IETF path of defining a third path which
makes everyone wrong (the new reply code suggestion comes to mind), but I
think that for this topic if we are going to make a change, it should be to
align standards to reality rather than attempt the reverse.
ietf-smtp mailing list