Meng Weng Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> [2004-02-10/16:43]:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:33:20PM +0100, Daniel Roethlisberger wrote:
Getting the concept of return path rewriting widely adopted should
be more important. A solid SRS specification, along with mature
reference implementations might help...
OK, I'll work on that next.
It would be interesting to hear other opinions on this. What does
everybody else think?
What do you think of the new Mail::SRS algorithm?
[...]
If you approve we can use that as the basis of a new SRS spec.
Well, it has considerably improved, that's for sure. I like it a lot
better than the original SRS. What it still needs is review by more
people, I think.
The main problem I still see is that we are mostly talking about the
specific implementation instead of the general scheme. The most up to
date definition of SRS should be in some kind of document, or even a web
page, not in the output of `make teach`. Not a great many people know
exactly what SRS currently is... (or am I the only person who's seeing a
problem here? Again, comments are welcome).
Cheers,
Dan
--
Daniel Roethlisberger <daniel(_at_)roe(_dot_)ch>
OpenPGP key id 0x804A06B1 (1024/4096 DSA/ElGamal)
144D 6A5E 0C88 E5D7 0775 FCFD 3974 0E98 804A 06B1
!->