On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, John C Klensin wrote: > > But, as an illustration of my problem, let's compare the above with the > later text about Submission servers (MSAs) supporting both Submit and > SMTP. I suggest (and I hope my comments made clear) that the *best* > practice there is for the MSA operator to require that all MUAs that > intend to be its client support Submit -- the port and the > authentication -- and hence that port 25 traffic be prohibited entirely > or, at least, supported with the same level of authentication that > particular MSA would require for Submit if the MUA were using that port. > But the document wraps SHOULD language around that case. If the > difference is recognition of existing practice and the fact that a few > MUAs haven't caught up, that is fine, but it is somewhat inconsistent, > IMO, with your "*best* current..." reasoning above. It's not inconsistent: you can't ignore the limits on what is achievable. You seem to be suggesting that "current practice" means what operators actually do (including the morons and dinosaurs) and "best practice" means the fantasy ideal world that we strive towards. Obviously a document describing the former doesn't move us forwards, and one describing the latter is useless for operators who are constrained by reality. I think it's unreasonable to argue against the document on the grounds that it tries to strike a reasonable middle path. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> http://dotat.at/ DOVER WIGHT: SOUTHERLY 3 OR 4, VEERING WESTERLY 4 OR 5. MODERATE, OCCASIONALLY ROUGH IN WEST WIGHT. RAIN OR SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf