Ah! The code>person@ problem is definitely an HTML typo; should have
been <code>person@. Good catch.
The others are indeed small holes to pick at. <grin> I'm sure your
phrasing is more technically accurate, but it gets awfully
convoluted. When, after all, I _am_ trying to simplify for the
consumption of mere mortals.
If others agree that I'm misleading users into a wrong understanding,
then I'll change it. But if it's "okay" as it stands, I'd rather let
it do so.
On Jan 7, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Dave Evans wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:27:05PM -0700, Esther Schindler wrote:
>> And finally, part 2 is published too!
>>
>> Let me know if I made any boo-boos.
>
> I'm picking fairly small holes here - overall I think it's an
> "accurate
> enough" article (in that in deliberately provides an overview, and
> glosses
> over some details). So, no complaints overall. But anyway...
>
> "the "make sure the sender is trustworthy" process is called
> authenticated
> SMTP." - I found that phrase to be particularly iffy. I would have
> phrased it
> more like, "If the MUA authenticates itself to the MTA (e.g. using
> your
> username & password), this is 'authenticated SMTP'". i.e. if the
> MUA connects
> to the MTA on a trusted IP address, and doesn't authenticate, it's
> probably
> misleading/wrong to call that "authenticated SMTP".
>
> "Your mail server does a lookup on the domain name servers
> (DNS) ... to find
> out who's signed up to accept mail for the recipient's domain." -
> again,
> "signed up" is an odd phrase to use here. More like, "Your mail
> server does a
> lookup ... to find out which mail servers the owners of the
> recipient's domain
> have nominated to receive incoming mail". i.e. making it clear
> that this is
> controlled by the recipient domain administrators.
>
> "I have a message for code>person@???" - some HTML
> glitch there,
> I think.
>
> --
> Dave Evans
> http://djce.org.uk/
> http://djce.org.uk/pgpkey
> --
