[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]

To: "Hector Santos" <hsantos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]
From: Andrew Newton <andy@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:09:57 -0500
Cc: "MXCOMP" <ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-mxcomp.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mxcomp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On Nov 23, 2004, at 10:22 AM, Hector Santos wrote:

What Alan is suggesting, for which I strongly agree, is that the focus in solving the "problem" needs a revisiting of the SMTP model or more specifically, the functional specification.

That has been and still is the basis for all the disagreements in this area.

-andy

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Follow-Ups:
- Re: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]
  - From: David Woodhouse

References:
- Re: FTC stuff 0) Lies 1)Yahoo & DK. 2)GoDaddy DNS & SPF & CSV. 3)Dean & FUSSP. 4)Testing 5)EFF, Anonymity.
  - From: Dave Crocker
- A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]
  - From: Hector Santos

Prev by Date: RE: Status of MARID WG?
Next by Date: Re: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]
Previous by thread: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]
Next by thread: Re: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread