Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@math.ntnu.no> wrote:
> + Charles Cazabon <qmail@discworld.dyndns.org>:
>
> | A misinterpretation of the relevant standards does not make qmail's
> | behaviour incorrect in any fashion. And note that saying "But
> | RFC2821 is out now, that's the relevant standard" demonstrates an
> | amazing lack of clue on the part of the utterer.
>
> I am the utterer in this case. Would you care to elaborate?
I wasn't referring to your reference to the spec in this thread. I was
referring to those who think an MTA is broken because it doesn't implement a
newly-minted RFC like 2821 the day after it comes out.
The SMTP spec moves *slowly*, precisely because SMTP has been around for a
long time, and it takes years (if not decades, now) to make sure that "old"
clients have died off. Backwards-incompatible changes can only be introduced
at a glacial pace, if at all. Some would say 2821 was actually *too*
progressive due to the problems with the DRUMS process.
Charles
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <qmail@discworld.dyndns.org>
Read http://pyropus.ca/personal/writings/12-steps-to-qmail-list-bliss.html
My services include qmail consulting. See http://pyropus.ca/ for details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|