On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 5:50 PM yuv via mailop wrote:
>
> > Not law, documentation. RFC5321 describes the state of SMTP, as of
> > 2008, sorta. How it was working best then, to the degree that the
> > editor and authors could reach consensus. The changes from 2821 to
> > 5321 are clarifications,
Sorry for the late reply, Bill. Life. In absence of external
governance factors, I can only self-govern. I decided to self-govern
toward co-operation rather than confrontation, let's work through the
little misunderstandings.
On Thu, 2021-12-30 at 11:29 -0500, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
> On
On 2021-12-29 at 07:40:01 UTC-0500 (Wed, 29 Dec 2021 07:40:01 -0500)
yuv via mailop
is rumored to have said:
On Tue, 2021-12-28 at 21:59 -0500, John Levine via mailop wrote:
It appears that yuv via mailop said:
The first thing to make internet email viable for the future is to
establish a
On 2021-12-28 at 21:59:10 UTC-0500 (28 Dec 2021 21:59:10 -0500)
John Levine via mailop
is rumored to have said:
It appears that yuv via mailop said:
The first thing to make internet email viable for the future is to
establish a defensible perimeter and keep bad actors out. Easier
said
On 12/29/2021 4:40 AM, yuv via mailop wrote:
Unfortunately, e-mail walled gardens are a Well Known Bad Idea.
RFCs-based e-mail is a walled garden. We lawyers call this the Rule of
Law.
That's very creative. Not what is normally meant, and not even slightly
useful. But very creative.
On Tue, 2021-12-28 at 21:59 -0500, John Levine via mailop wrote:
> It appears that yuv via mailop said:
> > The first thing to make internet email viable for the future is to
> > establish a defensible perimeter and keep bad actors out. Easier
> > said
> > than done. ...
>
> Unfortunately,
It appears that yuv via mailop said:
>The first thing to make internet email viable for the future is to
>establish a defensible perimeter and keep bad actors out. Easier said
>than done. ...
Unfortunately, e-mail walled gardens are a Well Known Bad Idea.
The short version is that any
