Mail Best Practices and Documentation (was Re: Spamhaus...)
LarrySheldon at cox.net
Sat Feb 20 10:50:08 CST 2010
On 2/20/2010 9:06 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:51:33 EST, Daniel Senie said:
>> Instead of saying "well, it's obvious to everyone," do something about it.
> *brrring... brrrrring...brrriiing...*
> Cluephone. It's for you.
> 5321 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. J. Klensin. October 2008. (Format:
> TXT=225929 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC2821) (Updates RFC1123) (Status:
> DRAFT STANDARD)
> It's been done already. It's been quoted in this thread even. There's no
> sense in Rick re-inventing the wheel when John Klensin and friends already
> fixed the flat and rebalanced it a year and a half ago.
I've never been part of the process, but as an observer,it appears to me
that unlike the old days where it seems, from the histories, that an RFC
could get approved in a matter of days or weeks, the hard part now is
not the writing, but the getting approved.
So (agreeing with Valdis) it seems unfair to chide people for not
writing one when there is a backlog of unapproved ones in the mill (some
of them as we see "on topic").
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
take everything you have."
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
More information about the NANOG