Dave Crocker wrote:
Yeah, this "running code" thing is over-rated.
indeed it is. many people are so accustomed to accepting the problems
with today's large-scale email operation that they fail to see how
things could be any other way. after all, it "works"...sort of.
It does have one characteristic that seems to be missing from your own
varied assertions about nasty impact: observable data.
there's plenty of observable data to support the assertions about nasty
impact.
It also presumes that those implementing code operate wholly
independently of those who will operate or use that running code.
no. it only presumes that when the standard says one thing and the
needs of operators say something else, that the implementor is placed in
an awkward position.
And the claim of more spam was directly addressed as being wrong.
So perhaps you can show an empirical basis for your claims of doom and
gloom?
so perhaps you can show an empirical basis for your claim of superiority ?
I didn't think so.
Keith
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf