Re: HELO procedural notes

["D. J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

Some juicy historical details in this message---including an admission
from the document editor that the continued presence of this text is an
``error'' on his part!

We have consensus against this text. But Crocker says that there's
consensus for the text. Newman agrees and says that the issue is
permanently closed. _They_ are the people interfering with DRUMS.

Chris Newman writes:
> I searched my archives for messages with "HELO" in the subject line. 

Those are not the only relevant messages. If you don't like the time it
takes to do a full-text search, blame yourself (and Klensin, of course)
for not keeping track of DRUMS discussions.

> According to such messages, one person has objected to this text on at 
> least two occasions.  In all cases there was no support expressed for the 
> objection.

There have been public objections from Philip Hazel (28 July 1998),
Robert Elz (5 August 1998), John Myers (6 August 1998), and of course
me---not to mention the decision at the in-person meeting, and the fact
that some widespread clients deliberately start with HELO.

Furthermore, on 30 January 1999, after I pointed out that the problem
still hadn't been fixed, Klensin asked me for a list of

   places where the EHLO preferences should be toned down as indicated
   by the minutes .... If I can get a precise list ... they will be
   fixed; any omissions are errors, not intentional. ... I will try to
   fix things according to principles if that is all I get, but I do
   make mistakes.

I took Klensin at his word, and sent a message to DRUMS explaining in
detail exactly what changes had to be made.

How many people here have ever expressed _support_ for the notion that
clients should be forced to use EHLO? Why was it ever added to the
document in the first place?

> The chair concludes there is rough concensus that the current 
> text is adequate for RFC publication and the issue is permanently closed.

Try again, Chris.

---Dan