Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Verisign: All Your ...

Dean Anderson wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Doug Royer wrote:
>  
>
> > > RFC 2821 (proposed standard) sheds some light on that: (This isn't a
> > > replacement to STD0010, but reveals the disagreement on the roles of MTAs
> > > and MUAs)
> > >
> > >      
> > Your quote talks about conventions that may be used. It does not support
> > your view that the MUA and MTA have to be separate pieces of code.
> >    
> If they aren't separate pieces of code, how is it that their functions
> will be separated?
The RFC does not say they must be separate programs. It talks about 
separate functions at the
conceptual level.

>  But assuming an MTA is bundled together with an MUA,
> the MUA function must hand the message to the MTA function for routing.
> The function of an MTA is still to return a bounce.
So even if you were right, it busts the MTA:

Prior to the change, the MTA would say "NO SUCH HOST" and never send the 
email (and
my  MTA was built into my MUA).

Now the MTA gets the 64.94.110.11 address and sends the email to the non 
existent domain.
Only for the same MTA to later get a bounced email that it has to make 
available to the MUA.
And I hope this will be my last email on this subject as this is not the 
list for this debate.
--

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com 
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
Doug(_at_)Royer(_dot_)com                 | Office: (208)612-INET
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                               |   Cell: (208)520-4044

               We Do Standards - You Need Standards

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature