IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Negotiated noncompliance

Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org> Thu, 17 August 2000 02:02 UTC

Received: from cs.utk.edu (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07003 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:02:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id WAA11321; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:01:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:01:36 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id WAA11304; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:01:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns.secondary.com (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id WAA11291; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:01:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns.secondary.com (208.184.76.39 -> ns.secondary.com) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:01:34 -0400
Received: from [165.227.249.17] (ip17.proper.com [165.227.249.17]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA25703 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org
Message-Id: <p05000e00b5c0ed3d2756@[165.227.249.17]>
In-Reply-To: <200008170028.UAA19031@astro.cs.utk.edu>
References: <200008170028.UAA19031@astro.cs.utk.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:01:32 -0700
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
Subject: Re: Negotiated noncompliance
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

At 8:28 PM -0400 8/16/00, Keith Moore wrote:
>I would like to register negative support for this suggestion.
>More details if we actually open the discussion.

I would like to see the discussion open. John's text comes from a 
discussion that he and Chris and I had in Pittsburgh. Basically, 
there is a great deal of dissent on this list for some of the 
prohibitions for servers in 821bis. It is clear that some server 
writers intend to ignore some of them, given that they are doing so 
now and do not want to break current functionality in their servers. 
However, without the prohibitions, the servers can say "anything 
goes" as soon as the client does something out of spec, including 
dropping the mail on the floor. The intent is to narrow the "anything 
goes" so that server implementors have guidance about where they 
really must prohibit and where they can make their own choices.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email