North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: mobile user strawman argument
- From: Todd Vierling
- Date: Thu Jun 30 22:05:11 2005
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > I've done a look-see around my network and acquaintances a while ago, and
> > among them were quite a few mailers, all of which supported not only
> > alternate ports, but also SMTP AUTH. MSA support is far more available
> > than
> > this classic FUD.
> Your network and your acquaintances don't count. They're much more
> technically competent than the average Internet user.
And Grandma Ann and her knitting circle aren't. Yeah, yeah, I've heard this
all before dozens of times, and the fact of the matter is that there are a
lot of ignorant folks in my family, and I did not set up, nor do I maintain,
any of their equipment or software. Of course, by far and large, they use
the crappy MUA which ships with the OS I already mentioned by inference,
which has long since supported alternate port submission.
Rather than repeating FUD with abstractions, would you care to point out
what MUAs you think still don't support a six-year-old RFC for which the
major MUAs *do* already provide support?
> > (Heck, if the change-for-standards-at-a-snail's-pace Pacific Northwestern
> > quasi-monopoly could get off their asses to allow alternate ports, anyone
> > should be able to offer it by now.)
> Plenty of monopoly cable and telephone operators still don't offer
> such services, and most will only be dragged kicking and screaming into the
> 1980s when they are literally given absolutely no other choice.
Um, I wasn't talking about an ISP. I was talking about the MUA with the
largest market share, and most frequently found security holes, which ships
with an OS I prefer not to name directly is possible.
Or is that still too vague?
-- Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>