Dave Crocker wrote: > Yeah, this "running code" thing is over-rated. indeed it is. many people are so accustomed to accepting the problems with today's large-scale email operation that they fail to see how things could be any other way. after all, it "works"...sort of. > It does have one characteristic that seems to be missing from your own > varied assertions about nasty impact: observable data. there's plenty of observable data to support the assertions about nasty impact. > It also presumes that those implementing code operate wholly > independently of those who will operate or use that running code. no. it only presumes that when the standard says one thing and the needs of operators say something else, that the implementor is placed in an awkward position. > And the claim of more spam was directly addressed as being wrong. > > So perhaps you can show an empirical basis for your claims of doom and > gloom? so perhaps you can show an empirical basis for your claim of superiority ? I didn't think so. Keith _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf