[136623] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Feb 3 17:34:02 2011
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:01:52 EST."
<15097721.4651.1296770512049.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:27:48 -0500
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1296772068_6170P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:01:52 EST, Jay Ashworth said:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
>
> > On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:12 EST, Matthew Huff said:
> > > SMTP is definitely not a p2p protocol in most corporate
> > > environments.
> >
> > Ahem. Please quit confusing "the protocol" with "that small segment of
> > the protocol we choose to allow/support on our network".
>
> Ahem.
>
> Please quit confusing "The Internet" with "my small edge network, which I
> interconnect with The Internet".
Corporations use a different version of RFC5321 that's 30% shorter and
removes features they happen to not use? Or are they using the same
RFC5321, but simply not using all the features?
The distinction is in fact important.
--==_Exmh_1296772068_6170P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFNSyvkcC3lWbTT17ARAiEyAJ4wJtQveYncZBRN8y5rNqRRQAHo5ACgtsku
mb+yRAXu8MaPZWD2naQ2Ipo=
=zHaF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1296772068_6170P--
