i think you'll find that port 25 is blocked going anywhere except
the operator's outgoing MTA
this is to require authentication to send email, exercise rate
limiting, and other anti-spam-sending strategies
if the ISP is going to be held responsible for the behavior of
their clients, then the
Excuse me, sir, but I've enjoyed quite enough of your behavior
Your lack of genuine operating experience is transparent. don't quote
adoption numbers for your software - i'm talking about *you*
having direct experience running very large name server systems
with many
actually, in the IETF, having running code for *one* solution is a good
way
to demonstrate how much of the problem is understood, and if some of
us had our way, it would be impossible to charter a Working Group
*without* the understanding of the problem space being *at least* that
good.
general availability has nothing to do with being used
the OSI protocol implementations were available on all major
platforms at the time. that didn't get them used by people.
are you the same Keith Moore who hops around every time anyone
goes near the end-to-end thing??
if two ships in
is yet to be seen.
this is neither an attack on or defence of anything - it's
just my reading of the forces at work.
cheers,
-mo
=
Office:
Mike O'Dell, President
Compass Rose Labs
3143 Cobb Hill Lane
Oakton VA 22124
your analogy with gun control is puzzling
i do not wish to deny anyone the right to do something profoundly
foolish; that preempts quite useful evolutionary processes.
i would prefer the IETF avoid being a willful participant in
the foolishness.
cheers,
-mo
oh i agree! the failure to start from working code
is the perniscious failing of most modern IETF WGs
-mo
both quotes were made, both are accurate
the fact a lot of people don't understand doesn't make either untrue
for instance, gravity works whether you understand or not.
likewise, Internet things work because you are in league with the
underlying physics. if you aren't, no amount of
actually, application connection robustness in the face of
transport failures or redirection is but one feature that
would acrue from having a decent session protocol in the
Internet universe. lots of things would benefit from it,
not just web sites doing load sharing - mobile packet phones,
actually the hazard of Powerpoint is to the IETF,
whether or not airborne
i'd be in favor of a rule outlawing printed slides,
much less real-time video spew with projectors
but then i'm a luddite
-mo
the distinction is often based on the namespace used for
making the forwarding decision
the term "router" is *usually* applied to a device which is
examining an L3 token, specifically an IP destination address.
from that destination address it decides how to forward the
packet. (note that, for
once upon a time, when routers ran at significantly less
than wire-speed, people trying to build fast "packet
flangers" wanted a term to differentiate their go-fast
box from the "legacy" go-slow boxes.
as Vern pointed out, that distinction is now specious, at best
(a most charitable
I think this discussion is revealing a deep truth and
avoiding that truth at the same time.
the real root-cause of this discussion is the assertion
of identity as determined by email address.
that's the operational basis for any kind of "subscription"
model based on email address.
the whole
one point you are ignoring when it comes to publishing just
anything as an RFC: once it has that designation "RFC",
THE IDEA IS SANCTIFIED, no matter what disclaimers you
plaster all over it. (Even a biohazard symbol with a
legend reading "DANGER: LIVE EBOLA" wouldn't help. Ooops -
can't do
14 matches
Mail list logo
