Date: 21 Aug 1998 18:40:06 -0000
Message-ID: <19980821184006.16290.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Mail-Followup-To: drums@cs.utk.edu
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: VRFY discussion - SUMMARY
References: <980819222351.208e2f6c@Cisco.COM> <199808201435.QAA00310@quill>

``straw man 3 a weak argument or opposing view set up by a politician,
debater, etc. so that he may attack it and gain an easy, showy victory''

Norbert Bollow writes:
> * It is not true that (as claimed by Mr. Bernstein) there'd be situations
>   where it is really impossible to implement VRFY in an SMTP server.

I never said any such thing.

Here's what I did say: ``Internet mail is a store-and-forward system.
Reliable real-time address verification is impossible.''

> * Mr. Bernstein's claims of legal problems of VRFY, and VRFY being "often
>   unacceptably expensive" are greatly exaggerated,

They are facts. The policies and cost-benefit analyses have been made.
Your opinion of the results is not relevant.

---Dan
Binary qmail distributions are allowed! http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail/dist.html