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

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Thursday, 21 June, 2007 18:16 +0100 Tony Finch
<dot at dotat.at> wrote:

> 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.

Hmm.  Since a few providers, at least one of them quite large,
have already imposed "find an MUA that supports authentication
or go elsewhere" requirements without being driven out of the
marketplace or even suffering any noticeable pain, I didn't
consider the requirement to be unachievable, unrealistic, or a
fantasy.  YMMD, of course.

     john


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