--On 8 August 2006 05:13:37 -0500 Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:56 AM +0100 2006-08-08, Ian Eiloart wrote: > >>> Right, but if we can't fix the problem of the multitude of broken >>> MTAs out there, and the fact that most of them probably don't assign >>> the appropriate extended response codes in accordance with the RFCs, >>> then the likelihood is that we are going to be lead to make the wrong >>> guesses based on the response we get. >> >> We already do that. This is the problem that we're trying to solve, not >> a new problem introduced by the proposal! > > No, that's precisely the problem -- the proposal does cause new problems > that have to be dealt with. Well, that's not true if the new default behaviour is the current broken behaviour. Would you accept that? > Because of all the broken MTAs out there, I believe that the probability > is high that we will be unable to guess correctly what type of bounce we > have for a statistically significant subsection of the population, and > that the potential consequences of either a false negative or a false > positive in this case are higher than taking the K.I.S.S. approach and > not making any attempt to guess what type of bounce we're dealing with. > > > So, feel free to go ahead and make this change and to put this entire > issue to rest, at least for the data you've collected from your site. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
