On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:54:03 EDT, Dean Anderson said: > Implementors are not the only users of standards. Businsess seek to > purchase and sell "Standard" Services, and may receive just and public > criticism for not providing the services they claim to provide. In some > jurisdictions, this could conceivably be considered fraud, and/or unfair > trade practices. So if a business (SMTP client vendor, SMTP server > vendor, ISP, etc) claims to provide "Standard SMTP Service", and comply > with the "SMTP Standard", to which RFC should they be held accountable? Given that the Cisco PIX claimed to have an SMTP implementation from the very beginning, and they still sold lots of them, I don't think there's much chance of leveraging a lawsuit over the distinction between 821 and 2821. (For those not familiar with the early PIX software, the best that can be said about it is "near-universal derision". Cisco has, to its credit, fixed all of the glaring bogosities that I'm aware of, so the current release of software *is* at least a "plays well with others" SMTP).
Attachment:
pgp00262.pgp
Description: PGP signature