Sam replied:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Phil Howard wrote:
>
> > Sam wrote:
> >
> > > > It's not a new version of SMTP if that is what you're afraid of. It only
> > > > collects some important extensions (such as Extended SMTP/EHLO) and
> > > > clarifications.
> > >
> > > No, it does more than just that. I just read it. My initial suspicions
> > > were correct.
> >
> > So what does it suggest doing that doesn't conform to the standard?
>
> For once thing, the explicit prohibition against content-based rejection
> of messages. This is probably as far out of touch with reality as you can
> possibly get. According to the draft, if some pissant decides to flood
> your server with spam, or even mailbomb you, there's nothing that you can
> do about it, according to the draft.
>
> I'm proud to announce that my mail server will violate this new "standard"
> at every possible opportunity.
Having not seen that "standard", but just on your description alone, I feel
it's a good bet that I will ensure my server violates it, as well.
My view of standards has always been that it is about communications and
meaning ... syntax and semantics. The 552 code means that the sender is
saying that the delivery has encountered a permanent error. It could be
lying. Whether it is lying or not, I can take that meaning with a grain
of salt, or disregard it altogether. Maybe I know it's a lie and maybe
I don't.
If I said "My hair is green", that would be an incorrect statement. That
it is incorrect does not mean that it violates the conventions of English
language to convey meaning. It was conveyed correctly; it's just that the
original meaning is false or deceitful.
Like English, any of the TCP/IP protocols can be used in potentially false
and misleading ways. If I forge the "From:" header, have I violated the
RFC822 standard? Some would say yes because the standard meant that it is
my originating address. I would say no, because what the standard defines
is how to convey a meaning of "This is my originating address" even if I
am acting in a deceitful manner to convey false information.
Even qmail selectively does such deceit in order to do things like making
sure bounces don't loop. I see nothing wrong with it, and not even a
violation of the standard. There are others that see it differently.
To me, a standard is violated if I fail to convey, within the terms of
how the standard said to convey it, the meaning I intended to convey.
In HTML, the <table> tag does not say "render this table". It says "this
is a table". What to do with the table depends on how you want to be
presented with the meaning of the information conveyed in the HTML body.
It might be ignored. It might draw graphically. It might be rendered
in a text hack. It might launch a spread sheet application. It might
get downloaded into your brain. It's not a violation to choose something
strange and unusual to do with it.
Here's an example of another standard that some have insisted that I have
violated. Yet, it works (with the standard browsers running on video modes
with 16, 24, or 32 bit color). So far no one has shown a specific part of
the standard that was violated, although several have indicated that I have
violated certain intents or expectations they believe the designers had.
You can see this violation (prepare for a 181779 byte download) at:
http://phil.ipal.org/tc.html
Actually, I won't announce my intent to violate this new "standard" you
spoke of. Instead, I will covertly "violate" it in a "deceitful" way :-)
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
