> -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Mehnle > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:34 AM
> Malcolm Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If these standards are open to interpretation then there will be > > > discrepancies between the MTAs. > > > > And that would be a problem... why? > > Where did you live during the past 7 years? Under a rock? Julian, Please try to show me some courtesy, and acknowledge that I *explicitly* answered my rhetorical question in the next paragraph, which you for some reason chose to ignore in your post. And the answer I provided was that it would problem *if* it resulted in less stuff working. If a given change results in *more* stuff working, your position simply becomes... legalistic, if not petulant! [ And, to answer you question, I've been living in California for the past 7 years, largely working on implementing SCSI devices and initiators. Compared to ANSI X3.131-1994 and the like, the RFCs are wonderfully relaxed. Still, in either case, dogmatic adherance to the letter of the standard/RFC doesn't help, and often hinders. *Intelligent* adherance does... ] > To > clearly see the consequences of loose interpretation of > standards, please have a look at the history of HTML and several > web browsers. The issue with HTML was not "loose interpretation of standards", but conflicting interpretations. The issue *here* is whether the RFC's should be interpret AS INTENDED (see RFC2555) or as some mystical sacred document. > I agree that there should be an option(!) to enable loose DNS MX > checking, but it must never be the default or it will only > encourage DNS masters to not make their homework, and then we > will have to make more and more software support such misconfigurations. No-one is suggesting (despite the slight innuendo) that RFCs be ignored wholesale. The issue is whether the interoperability of software should be REDUCED by adhering slavishly to a narrow (and arguable) viewpoint, as opposed to increased by a more tolerant viewpoint. There are, obviously, problems when there are conflicting viewpoints, but there aren't in this situation, and as far as I can tell there can be no doubt as to what an MX pointing to a CNAME actually *means*. Or do you disagree? Is there some possible meaning of an MX/CNAME that is not "if the target of the MX is a CNAME, interpret the CNAME until you get an A"? Malc. ------------------------------------------------------- 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
