nanog mailing list archives
Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober)
From: Michael.Dillon () btradianz com
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:22:17 +0000
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
Current thread:
- Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober), (continued)
- Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober) Edward B. Dreger (Dec 07)
- Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober) Rich Kulawiec (Dec 10)
- Recording the return path (was Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors) Michael . Dillon (Dec 12)
- Re: Recording the return path (was Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors) Per Heldal (Dec 12)
- Re: Recording the return path (was Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors) Michael . Dillon (Dec 12)
- Re: Recording the return path (was Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors) Todd Vierling (Dec 12)
- Re: Recording the return path (was Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors) Per Heldal (Dec 12)
- Re: Recording the return path (was Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors) Stephen Sprunk (Dec 12)
- Re: Recording the return path (was Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors) Todd Vierling (Dec 12)
- Re: Recording the return path (was Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors) Todd Vierling (Dec 12)
- Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober) Michael . Dillon (Dec 08)
- Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober) Niels Bakker (Dec 08)
- Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors Florian Weimer (Dec 07)
- RE: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober) Daniel Senie (Dec 04)