spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: What to include...

2004-10-05 21:55:25

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Connor" <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: What to include...


I personally don't use the word "loophole" to describe "lack of a
feature".

Look Greg,

I completely disagree with the negative connotations you suggest are
associated with the term loophole.    Absolutely not.  I have never in my
rich engineering career seen or felt anyone get "hurt feelings" over
something like this.  If you feel otherwise, thats your problems but picture
me as being RUDE with this terminology.  I take offense to the insinuating
that am being rude.  Absolutely not.  Most engineers worth their salt don't
have a problem with this sort of stuff and make no bones when someone
reports a "bug" or something inconsistent.  I expect people to us where
there are problems and I am not going cry over it.  If an engineer is going
to cry over what faults people find, well, quite frankly, they got alot to
learn.

Anyway, its 100% completely defined as a loophole and any engineer worth his
salt will call it that too.

Dictionary.com definition:

1.  A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in
the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading
compliance.

2. A small hole or slit in a wall, especially one through which small arms
may be fired.

American Heritage:

Loop"hole`\, n. 1. (Mil.) A small opening, as in the walls of fortification,
or in the bulkhead of a ship, through which small arms or other weapons may
be discharged at an enemy.

2. A hole or aperture that gives a passage, or the means of escape or
evasion.

Webster:

1: an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or contract) that makes
it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation

2: a small hole in a fortified wall; for observation or discharging weapons

I don't know about you, but if you only doing an LMAP check for the Return
Path domains, with no provision to logically validate that result with an
LMAP helo check, that is a 'hole" or "slit" or way to "escape" or "evade"
compliancy, obligation to compliancy,  etc - Loophole.

Sincerely,

Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
305-431-2846 Cell
305-248-3204 Office



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>