In <4297F55D(_dot_)27D1(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
ACK, I tried this with my "source routes". I'm a bit paranoid
with Bruce's review tool, declaring a MUST in 2821 as archaic
scares me. Plus the other potential traps in this part like
why mention "bangpaths" at all if they are irrelevant for SPF.
"Archaic" does not mean "obsolete" or "no longer supported". Source
routes, whether they are a MUST in 2821 or not, are an archaic feature
of SMTP. People still use UUCP and bangpaths. MTAs that haven't ever
used UUCP or bangpaths still run software that supports them.
*sigh*
I'm sorry, but for a frickin' sentence, I have spent all the time I'm
going to on this subject. I *REALLY* don't care any more. If you can
convince a council member to change their vote and therefore re-open
the issue, I will vote against any change. If I'm overruled, fine.
Bruce has not yet really started. And he'll find _all_ formal
problems if he's determined to find them. Hell, and I never
checked all referenced RfCs for "errata", Bruce also knows all
"errata" and tends to insist on references in certain cases.
Bruce Lilly will have to get past his SPF IS EVIL! rants first. I'm
not sure that will ever happen.
He wants a _definition_ of "domain owner". He wants a proper
RfC source for POSIX timestamps, and above all he's not joking.
Yeah, I'm sure Bruce isn't joking. I found both of those to be very
funny none the less. I liked the suggestion by someone that we
should change everything to Primary Domain Controller instead of
domain owner in order to reduce confusion. ;-)
It is a game.
I'm not playing.
-wayne