[30551] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Can someone test AOL's mx servers for me...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Shawn McMahon)
Fri Aug 11 09:10:20 2000
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:08:20 -0400
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000811090820.D18871@eiv.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0127E258EE29D3118A0F00609765B44847CADA@subnet-gw-00053.sitestream.net>; from kulriksen@publichost.com on Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 04:04:26AM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 04:04:26AM -0700, Karyn Ulriksen wrote:
>=20
> Please. Please. Everyone. Thank you. But you can all go home now! I th=
ink
> I've received about 50 messages now about the RFC compliant '<>' usage and
> have got the message. So now I know ... it's right up there with not us=
ing
> CNAMEs for MX records ... they use to work once upon a time in a more
> forgiving internet (whenever that was) or at least a less RFC compliant
> internet. But I can take a hint (all 50!).
Although those people are correct that RFC821 specifies that you should be
sending angle brackets, they are conveniently forgetting the author's own
rule of implementing protocols, from RFC791:
"In general, an implementation must be conservative
in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior. That
is, it must be careful to send well-formed datagrams, but must accept
any datagram that it can interpret (e.g., not object to technical
errors where the meaning is still clear)."
Note the "must".
So, they may be correct in telling you that you're not RFC821 compliant, bu=
t they
are not RFC791 compliant for rejecting it.
I will not buy any objection that "FROM: joe@foo.bar" is unclear but
"FROM: <joe@foo.bar>" isn't.
Or, in summary:
You're being sloppy, but they're being assholes.
--69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE5k/rEEcl9bQ0RMt0RAnVxAKCmUDMmFfhfdO3AzLWT0Wvf/furBACgisce
KpIgTMVwrYBcQ/Tck7lNLpM=
=EsxV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD--
