Re: client requests ending \012

["Lee Thompson" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:41:26 +0100, you wrote:

> I have to chime in here and protest such a response. This sounds like a 
> good reason to go back and insure that CRLF is a MUST and NOT considered 
> optional in ANY CASE. I don't understand why it is so difficult to simply 
> establish a consensus (which it seems pretty obvious to me that there is 
> one, at least on this subject) and move forward with it. There are ALWAYS 
> going to be "rogues" who choose not to adhere to, or perhaps to not even 
> learn, the standards. This is not what we should be focused on, nor is it 
> truly feasible either. What we should be doing is determining REAL, VALID, 
> TECHNICAL reasons for or against any specific mechanism or procedure, such 
> as CRLF . CRLF

We market a SMTP/POP3 server for win32 platform and have had to make numerous
changes over the years to allow one client (or server) or another interoperate
with us.

Unfortunately most IT people aren't interested in "that client isn't working
to spec" -- they're in the position of having all of their deployed client
software working with the server -- and if ours doesn't - they'll go to
someone else.

The SMTP/Message Format system currently in use is a mess.  We have nearly 20
years of standard drift and those standards are vague in some areas.   For
better or for worse the internet is now a commercial environment which means
interoperability and reliability are the key factors.

I do think the revised spec should tighten the standard down -- but I also
think MTAs should be liberal in what they accept.


Anyway my 2 cents :)




-- 
Lee Thompson                       [e-mail]
Seattle Lab Inc.           http://www.seattlelab.com
Software Engineer                      ICQ: 19545760