 
Thu, 8 May 1997 09:49:39 -0700
|
If the intention is to prevent spamming I fully agree with AOL.
IMHO, if an existing standard is broken it should not be used,
but replaced with a better approach, even if it is not standardized.
Guenter
At 12:34 PM 5/8/97 -0400, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 1997 11:28:14 EST, you said:
>> We run the MUSIC operating system as a guest under VM. Today I received
>> the following reply when trying to send email from MUSIC via VM SMTP to
>> AOL.
>>
>> VM.NMU.EDU unable to deliver following mail to recipient(s):
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> VM.NMU.EDU received negative reply:
>> 553 <@VM.NMU.EDU:[log in to unmask]>... Source routed envelope sender
>> rejected (See RFC 822, section 6.2.7)
>>
>> Has anyone else seen anything like this? It was working last week and
>> its my "belief" that I didn't change anything...
>
>(Am CC'ing this reply to several places - apparently more people are
>complaining now....)
>
>AOL has decided to unilaterally violate RFC1123, sections 5.2.19,
>which requires accepting source routes, in favor of an
>as-yet-still-draft future standard that permits rejecting these. We
>have already contacted AOL, and they seem to feel that the language in
>RFC1123, section 5.2.6 which permits simply ignoring the source route,
>is insufficient.
>
>We have been informed by Brad Knowles of AOL that they consider
>section 7.5 of draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-04.txt (still in draft status)
>to be more important than RFC1123, which is in full standard status.
>
>Quite frankly, this is no way to run an Internet. Once the DRUMS
>document moves up to Proposed Standard status or so, I'll support
>AOL's right to implement it. But disregarding the standards in favor
>of a draft is no way to do business, even if you do have the most
>market share.
>
>--
> Valdis Kletnieks
> Computer Systems Senior Engineer
> Virginia Tech
>
>
>
>Attachment Converted: C:\Data\Email\Attachments\Re AOL mail traffic
>
|
|
|
