Re: Last Call: draft-hutzler-spamops (Email Submission: Access and Accountability) to BCP

[Tony Finch <dot at dotat.at>]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> But, as an illustration of my problem, let's compare the above with the
> later text about Submission servers (MSAs) supporting both Submit and
> SMTP.  I suggest (and I hope my comments made clear) that the *best*
> practice there is for the MSA operator to require that all MUAs that
> intend to be its client support Submit -- the port and the
> authentication -- and hence that port 25 traffic be prohibited entirely
> or, at least, supported with the same level of authentication that
> particular MSA would require for Submit if the MUA were using that port.
> But the document wraps SHOULD language around that case.  If the
> difference is recognition of existing practice and the fact that a few
> MUAs haven't caught up, that is fine, but it is somewhat inconsistent,
> IMO, with your "*best* current..." reasoning above.

It's not inconsistent: you can't ignore the limits on what is achievable.
You seem to be suggesting that "current practice" means what operators
actually do (including the morons and dinosaurs) and "best practice" means
the fantasy ideal world that we strive towards. Obviously a document
describing the former doesn't move us forwards, and one describing the
latter is useless for operators who are constrained by reality. I think
it's unreasonable to argue against the document on the grounds that it
tries to strike a reasonable middle path.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <dot at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
DOVER WIGHT: SOUTHERLY 3 OR 4, VEERING WESTERLY 4 OR 5. MODERATE, OCCASIONALLY
ROUGH IN WEST WIGHT. RAIN OR SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.

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