On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 09:46, Jon Nelson wrote: > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > > Malcolm Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Which leads to the inevitable observation that there are no prizes for > > > conformance to the RFC, but there are for getting the job done. The > > > job of a mail transfer agent is to transfer mail. Not pass a > > > conformance test based on a specific interpretation of an RFC... > > > > Not conforming to the RFC might not get you a prize, but it definitely > > has a price you'll have to pay some day or another. Widely accepting > > non-compliance will inevitably make non-compliance... well... widely > > acceptable. So we tend to lose standards compliance, ultimately > > harming interoperability. > > Mr. Weir is absolutely right. > > I challenge you to show me a software product that is 100% RFC compliant > *and* is usable without major caveats. Offhand, I can't think of any. > If courier were 100% RFC compliant it would not interoperate with *any* > other MTA, except itself perhaps. The RFCs are *guidelines* and could > be considered "strong suggestions". > > I find your position especially delicious considering your MUA of > choice: > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) > > courier-mta's job is to be an MTA. Read that out loud, and expand the > acronym. MAIL TRANSFER AGENT. Yep. Transferring mail is it's JOB. > it's not courier-rfc-compliant-the-rest-of-you-be-damned-mta, it's > courier-mta. By suggesting that courier-mta conform to all RFCs 100% > means that you live in a fantasy land where by being pedantic about > everything you can force everybody else to be pedantic, too. > > -- > Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. > Liberty is two wolves attempting to have a sheep for dinner and > finding a well-informed, well-armed sheep. > > Jon Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > C and Python Code Gardener
the job of courier is to be an MTA alright.To do such a job requires "best practice" rules (RFC). maybe we can't implement ALL of them, but we sure should do our best to, or we'll end up even worse. is courier's behavior correct? not entirely in my opinion. Should we refuse MX with IP addresses? yep. i've had a bunch of customers bitching about it too, and EVERY ONE OF THEM were understanding after i sent them the relevant RFC part (3.3.9 i think). we also solved the problem in 99% of the cases, including some government agencies (Canada). -- Daniel Higgins Administrateur Syst�me / Network Administrator Netcommunications Inc. Tel: (450) 346-3401 Fax: (450) 346-3587 http://www.netc.net ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
