Re: SMTP addresses in <>

[Greg Skinner <gds () best com>]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 11:32:13AM -0700, Sean Figgins wrote:
> Alexander Harrowell wrote:
> > Because....we wouldn't have e-mail? Consider the pain of getting 
> > worldwide interoperability for a "notmail" system that insisted on 
> > strict validation...
>
> The SMTP ship has already sailed, so trying to change the behavior of 
> email would be difficult.
>
> I do, however, reject the notion that strict validation make 
> implementation of interoperability painful.  If the specifications are 
> clearly defined, rather than allowing interpretation by the implementer, 
> then interoperability would be almost assured.  The problem is that many 
> specifications in RFCs are loose and left open to interpretation by the 
> individual software programmers.

There's another old saying:  Quality, Schedule, Features:  Pick 2.  It
applies to specifications as well as implementations.  This is why the
robustness principle is important (and IMO ought to be followed); it
recognizes that there might be communication in the absence of perfect
specification or implementation, and that it's valuable (in general)
to let that communication proceed.  (An argument to the contrary is
that this principle was introduced at a time when there was a much
lower incidence of "unwanted traffic", particularly that which
strongly correlated to protocol violations.)

--gregbo