On Sun, 2004-08-01 at 11:00 +0200, Koen Martens wrote:
Come on james, this has got to stop _now_. It's not that long ago that
your libsrs had the same flaw in handling it's SRS hashes: contrary to
what the RFC's said your library handled the SRS hash as if case was
always preserved, the RFC clearly stated you should never assume that
this is the case. Did we shout 'oh what an immature library, folks don't
use this crap'? No, we pointed out the flaw and it got fixed. Done.
Please stop this. You are losing credibility with this behaviour.
I find it hard to believe that after an entirely clean week of NOT being
on the list, and not reading any relevant emails to this regard (as i
was in the desert for a week purposely email-less), we are still in the
same spot we were several weeks ago.
As with anything in life, people have a CHOICE to use or not use a
particular product or offering should they choose, and having made a
particular decision, doesnt preclude the user/administrator from barking
about such frailities as a library that has some "bugs" in it. I will
point out for the record that Microsoft themselves made it a point and
MADE MONEY on what was nothing more than a mere bug-fix release of MS-
DOS a number of years ago.
My point being, if people choose to use libspf2, thats certainly within
their prerogative - and getting support for said choice shouldnt be
difficult. However i believe many postings to this regard should NEVER
have made it to this list, but rather should be posted to the library
specific support list.
I suggest that postings to a specific library (i.e libspf2 or libspf-alt
whatever you want to call it) should be posted to that specific list NOT
to a discussion list that pertains more to the implementation and basic
ideas that are more general and relate more to an IETF draft or even
RFC.
I will also make one more possibly lame point, Requests For Comments
(RFCs) are just that, they are roadmaps NOT standards/laws and if people
can NOT see the difference and make that distinction, then there is a
real problem. I personally abhore implementors claiming that 'hey, i did
it according to the RFC, so it MUST be right' and things of that nature
- people, its a roadmap, not a hard and fast RULE or LAW.
Lets get BACK to work and get this standardized such that implementors
and software providers can move on and complete the necessary work they
need to do to get this out into the wild and as fully implemented as we
can.
Just my 2 pesos.
Michael Weiner
Senior Systems Administrator
AmericanGreetings.com