Re: [Asrg] MTA registration means Path registration

["Alan DeKok" <aland at ox.org>]

Dave Crocker <dcrocker at brandenburg.com> wrote:
> AD>   My thesis is that we have to re-examine that sequence of MTA's, the
> AD> roles that they play, and our terminology used to describe those
> AD> roles.
> 
> ok. however, i have not seen any document that attempts to do that. nor
> will such an effort produce anything useful for a very long time.

  While that may be true, understanding a system is the first step
towards fixing any problems it may have.  I take it that your position
is that you refuse to re-examine your understanding of the SMTP
system, in light of the abuses of viruses & spam.

  Why, then, are you on ASRG?

> AD>   If we say "mail traverses multiple MTA's, and therefore each
> AD> MTA does relaying", then we are avoiding the exact topic I wish to
> AD> discuss.
> 
> it does not 'avoid' anything.  it describes reality.

  It avoids the topic I wish to discuss.  I was sure the text I wrote
said that.  I don't see why you refuse to acknowledge that you're
refusing to discuss the topic I'm bringing up.

  Oh, wait...

> you want to change the nature of the infrastructure. 

  Would you claim that the current infrastructure is perfect?  Would
you claim that nothing needs fixing?  Would you claim that we can fix
the system to solve the spam problem without changing anything?

  Would you answer *any* of those questions *any* of the times I've
asked them?  Nope.  Your position is in large part based on a refusal
to acknowledge what your position is.  That's a hidden agenda, and
it's rude.  Most everyone else here has been open and honest about
their agenda, which means it's easy for you to attack them, and
difficult for them to defend themselves.

  If you're not willing to change anything in the SMTP infrastructure
to address the problem of spam, I don't see why you're on ASRG, other
than to shout down people who want to talk about changing the system.

> you want to redefine established terminology.

  Bullshit.  Absolute, total, bullshit.

  I defined my *own* terminology.  It is *new* terminology, to
describe disparate pieces of the SMTP system which are currently
lumped together under one term.  Did you even bother to read the post
you're responding to?  Just what is your problem?

  I find your misrepresentation of my position so egregiously wrong as
to be deliberately insulting.

> in any event, it it does not warrant calling an infrastructure with a
> 30-year history 'broken'.

  Oh, I see.  Nothing's wrong with SMTP, nothing's wrong with the
current implementation and deployments, the whole virus/spam problem
is a figment of our imagination.  Right...

  Abuse of a system indicates that it was NOT designed to prevent such
abuse.  For any rational person, that means that the design is broken.

> when there is a document describing an new architecture for Internet
> mail, it will be possible to explore your model.

  By which you mean you categorically refuse to discuss the topics
I've brought up on this list.  I wasn't aware that every thread on
ASRG was required to be centered around an ID.

  What issue are you afraid of addressing?

> AD>   The confusion arises because you're trying to treat each MTA as
> AD> being identical.  They're not.
> 
> there is nothing in the current Internet mail service that supports your
> view, technically.

  Which I take to mean that you're refusing to address the concepts I
brought up, and the reasons behind those concepts.  You're also
refusing to explain *why* those concepts are wrong.  Instead, you're
just sticking your fingers in your ears, and going "la-la-la Alan's
wrong.".


  Thanks for this post, Dave.  It's glaringly obvious now that you
have no intention of recognizing me as someone who has anything to
contribute to this debate.  Every time I try to reach one of the bars
you set, you raise it, and then claim I never tried to reach it.  You
misrepresent my position in an insulting manner.  You repeatedly claim
I'm trying to re-define common terms, even when I repeatedly say I'm
defining new terms.  You respond to my detailed explanation of my
position with "No, you're wrong".

  And nothing I say can convince you that you're doing this.

  Your prejudices are so strong that they're preventing you from
engaging in rational discourse.  I find your behavior to be rude,
insulting, and unprofessional.

  Alan DeKok.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg