On Wed, Jun 17, 1998 at 08:36:23PM +0200, Eric Thomas wrote:
> >Hmmm. Given that you make software for the Internet, don't you have
> >someone read ALL the draft RFC's? If not, why not?
> For the same reason that we don't have someone reading ALL the Microsoft
> technical articles about Windows NT, ALL the Sun technical articles about
> Solaris, and so on. Which incidentally are a LOT more relevant on the
> average than draft RFCs. Mailing lists are not standardized by the IETF
> and will probably never be, and as for the MIME and SMTP RFCs, we follow
> them of course, just as we follow selected NT issues and are a field test
> site for many operating systems, which doesn't mean we read articles
> about COBOL compilers or SNA.
Don't be ridiculous; nobody asked you if you read articles about
COBOL compilers or SNA. You were asked why you don't have someone
read all the draft RFC's. I don't see an answer to that question
in the above paragraph.
> >The -request convention has been around since the Arpanet. I remember
> >seeing it back in 1979.
> Yes, and it pointed to a human person.
Back then, yes. But it's clearly been understood for well over a decade
that one can expect to find an agent of *some* kind -- either human or
software -- at that address, which is capable of processing requests.
Further, it's been clearly understood that IF an automated agent was
present, that was where it could be found.
> >From these comments it is obvious that you are not qualified to discuss
> ease of use issues.
I don't recall submitting my resume to you for your consideration. (Rest
assured, it's unlikely that I will in the future. If your company
has one.) Now would you like to discuss the issue on the merits, or
would like to work out from where you are and contend that I'm too tall
to discuss ease of use issues?
> >But otherwise, face the fact that you were caught napping by the
> >codification of a de facto standard that predates your efforts
> LISTSERV is in full compliance with the de facto standard. RFC2142
> attempts to redefine this standard to be a totally different thing. This
> is why we will not implement it.
LISTSERV is in non-compliance with the de facto standard -- mostly
because it's *not* what you claim it to be -- and with RFC2142.
Frankly, I'm astonished. This is a pretty amazing case of denial,
which wouldn't really bother me -- hey, you want to ship broken
software, go for it -- except that it has repercussions for everyone
else on the 'net who *is* in compliance with the de facto standard
and who will make good faith efforts to comply with RFC 2142. Maybe
you think you're enough of a heavyweight in the marketplace to
get away with flaunting it -- and maybe you are.
But I hope you aren't. And I'll certainly do my small part to try
to make that a reality.