Re: SMTP AUTH design-team meeting addendum

[John Gardiner Myers <jgmyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris Newman wrote:
> I agree.  But this wording is a bit subtle.  Here's another try:

The wording was subtle for several reasons:

1) This document is avoiding the political morass of specifying anything
that pertains only to message submission.  The suggested replacement
wording explicitly pertains to client UIs.  The only clients with UIs
are submission clients.  If there is wording which is specific for the
use of authentication in mail submission, it should go into the
submission document.

2) I do not want to recommend specific site policies or require
implementations to support specific site policies, unless such
recommendations or requirements are necessary for interoperability or
security.  The most the document should say is "if you want to have
such-and-such policy, the best technical way to implement it is to do
such-and-so."