And deploying ESI prevents this?
At 09:11 PM 7/10/2001 -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>Hi Valdis. Hi Kieth.
>
>I was speaking of the heuristic to invoke vectoring, not the
>application semantics. Please re-read. Apply sarcasm where
>appropriate.
>
>The point is, deploying a working OPES means that people will have
>more opportunity to stick their noses where they don't belong, and to
>ignore application semantics on the grounds of "well, the vectoring
>technology takes care of that." Just think - with OPES, anyone with
>half a clue (or less) and a OPES server can interpose their newest,
>niftiest 'value-added service' into your application data stream.
>
>What fun.
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 11:47:57PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:01:40 PDT, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > Interesting... seems to be a message generated by an intermediary
> > > that used a heuristic to vector the message and effect a
> > > transformation... Unfortunately, that transformation was performed
> > > without proper knowledge of the semantics of the application
> > > protocol, incurring unintended and undesireable results.
> > >
> > > Maybe if we standardized the heuristics and the means of vectoring,
> > > the transformation engines would magically behave in a more
> > > responsible manner... or maybe it would just encourage the deployment
> > > of transformation engines.
> >
> > Umm.. Mark? The heuristics *are* standardized.
> >
> > It's called "Thou shalt send this crap to the SMTP MAIL FROM: address".
> >
> > Of course, if people manage to botch something THAT simple and
> > well understood, how will we ever deploy a working OPES?
> >
> > /Valdis
>
>--
>Mark Nottingham
>http://www.mnot.net/
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology
