Patrick Ben Koetter:
> * Wietse Venema <postfix-devel@postfix.org>:
> > Viktor Dukhovni:
> > > The entire approach really, it is much too complex, but specifically:
> > >
> > > - The standard proposes carrying two addresses in the message
> > > header and envelope for every recipient. This way lies insanity.
> > > Bugs, security issues, unpredictable message handling.
> > >
> > > - The standard fundamentally violates the design of MIME by
> > > allowing transfer-encoding of composite (mail/message-rfc822)
> > > parts. Breaks content inspection, MIME normalizers, ...
> > >
> > > These are not minor issues. My vote is that this standard is dead
> > > on arrival, may it soon be forgotten.
> >
> > I would not mind if it dies, for those reasons. That said, if it
> > gets adoption, then there is little choice but waste a year of
> > development and add it to Postfix.
>
> Seriously. If both of you think the whole thing it crap, why don't you stand
> up then and make yourself heared? Your voices have some wheight.
I have better things to do than to play Don Quixote.
To end this thread on a positive note, a great man wrote a book
chapter about the second system effect(*), and some people in IETF
would benefit from reading it.
Wietse
Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect
