[87166] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com)
Thu Dec 8 06:49:01 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0512072124530.8097@pop.ict1.everquick.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:22:17 +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> Perhaps DSNs should be sent to the original recipient, not the purported
> sender. RFC-compliant? No.
The RFC process itself is broken when clueless vendors
treat RFCs as inviolable specs and implement according to
the RFC even when they find flaws in it. If they want to
remain true to the RFC process, they should not implement
dumb things found in an RFC, instead they should write and
submit a new RFC correcting the error and explaining the
right way to do things.
--Michael Dillon
