Re: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic

[Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:

> > That's fine.  You might want to study the evolution of NNTP.  
> > There, lack of 
> > the official IETF stamp of approval did not inhibit NNTP from 
> > evolving.  If 
> > you try to implement NNTP based only on IETF's standards-track 
> > documentation, you won't get very far.
>
> Are you saying that NNTP is a good example of protocol design?
> Or a good example of creating a widely supported feature set?

NNTP works.  It has survived the onslaught of spam far better than SMTP.  I 
may be see one or two spam message a week across all the newsgroups I'm 
subscribed to.  And NNTP's evolution was outside of the IETF process.

> I don't think either really holds. NNTP was in any case established
> and the RFC published before the date of the first IETF meeting
> and long before there was a defined IETF process.

The early versions of NNTP, perhaps.  The NNTP of today has evolved far 
beyond those early days.

> NNTP chews up about four orders of bandwidth more bandwidth than it
> needs to.

I don't think so.

>           The protcol set is poorly standardized and the application
> has failed to meet the problems of spam, trolls and other social 
> issues.

That's not what I'm seeing.  I see hundreds of thousands of independent 
nodes; excellent propagation, certainly no worse than SMTP.

Attachment: pgp00016.pgp
Description: PGP signature