On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:32 , Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com> said:
> At 10:50 AM 2003-03-02 -0600, nolan@celery.tssi.com wrote:
>
> > > I've got just one. Do RFC3464 right!
> > >
> > > There is no longer any excuse for not using DSNs. If sites would use
> > > them (and use them correctly) we wouldn't need VERPs, which kill
> > > performance unnecessarily. And we wouldn't need probes to find bad
> > > email addresses.
> > >
> > > There is something bad to say about every major ISP on the issue of
> > > RFC3464 compliance.
> >
> >And that doesn't suggest problems with RFC 3464 to you?
> >
> >As most of us have never worked for a major ISP, and are unlikely to
> >do so, perhaps someone could analyze what concerns or problems large ISP's
> >may have with RFC 3464 compliance.
> >
> >I really doubt they're all being non-compliant just out of spite.
>
> At one point, the author of Postfix estimated that DSN would more than
> double the size of Postfix. The problem may actually be worse than the
> disease.
>
The exim author has said similar things (more on the complexity front
rather than size). I don't speak for him tho'
--
Alan Thew alan.thew@liverpool.ac.uk
Computing Services,University of Liverpool Fax: +44 151 794-4442
References:
|
|
