On 6/12/2010 3:09 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Hi,
section 2.1 of the submission spec defines the three MSA, MTA, MUA
acronyms. These definitions are often expanded for explaining the
corresponding concepts to end users, e.g. on Wikipedia. IME, there is
still confusion. For example, users tend to think that an MSA or an MTA
may be included in a MUA; I'm not sure why.
For example, I would change
With some regularity, the community suffers from redundant, vague and/or
inconsistent definitions and even specifications, such as between the Internet
Mail Format document and the SMTP document. This is especially true with
respect to the use of common terms.
So since you have raised the issue, I'll ask why these terms are not, instead,
defined as citations to RFC 5598?
The community put quite a bit of energy and time into the terminology defined
there.
Seems a shame to ignore it...
d/
ps. There are any number of obvious ways to de-rail this question. I'd like to
suggest that instead the question be considered with some care. The problem of
wobbly terminology in our segment of the Internet technical world is serious and
I believe it warrants efforts to get more reliable and precise use of common
terms. If not now, when...?
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
