[ On Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 18:23:12 (-0800), Pat Lashley wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [Exim] OT: Problem sending mail to verizon.net
>
> Although SMTP strongly supports store-and-forward, there is nothing
> in the RFC that mandates, or even indicates a preference for that
> paradigm over direct immediate delivery.
Ah, sorry, but you're just SO WRONG. SMTP _IS_ a store and forward
protocol. PERIOD. RTFRFC.
Perhaps you don't understand what "store and forward" means in this
context. You certainly don't seem to understand its implications.
> Bullshit! When implemented correctly, it is a perfectly good
> technique to get a first-order approximation of what will happen
> if you accept a message and then attempt to bounce it.
That's also absolutely wrong and IMPOSSIBLE, BY DEFINITION of the
protocol.
You see it work when it works and you are happy, but you are ignoring
all of the problems. _ALL_ of those problems, every single one of them,
is due to the fact that active sender address verification by way of
SMTP breaks SMTP in fundamental ways. None of those problems could
happen if what you are wishing for were true. However what you are
wishing for is impossible given the existing definiton of SMTP.
IMPOSSIBLE!
> Note
> that the only results it can produce are "Nope, we won't accept
> it", and "Maybe we will accept it".
You simply don't understand SMTP as a communications protocol.
The implications of store-and-forward in SMTP permeate every bit of this
issue right from its edge to its core.
If you don't already see these issues then I'm afraid I'm not the person
who will be able to give you a technical explanation of why you are so
wrong. To me the issues are so black and white that I can see no way or
need to explain them any further.
> Any store-and-forward aspect of SMTP has nothing to do with the
> validitity of the check.
It has _everything_ to do with it.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
