From: dawson@vdbsan (Willard Dawson)
Newsgroups: comp.bbs.waffle
Subject: Re: TRUNCATED BATCH(es)
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:27:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: vdbsan.1992Aug26.212750.5269
Organization: BellSouth Information Networks, Inc.

amillar@bolis.SF-Bay.org (Alan Millar) writes:

>(* mounting soapbox *)

>Folks, the term "RFC 822 compliant" DOES NOT mean that a mail system follows
>RFC 822 verbatim.  It means that the mail system follows RFC 822 AND THE
>RFCs WHICH SUPERCEDE AND/OR UPDATE IT.

>You can't drive on the street based on a 1983 driver's handbook, even though
>most of the laws are the same.  You can't sign up for college classes based
>on a 1983 catalog, even though most of the classes may be the same.  You've
>got to include the revisions since then.  You can't nit-pick an e-mail
>implementation based on JUST RFC 822.  You've got to look at the later
>RFCs.  It's not that hard, is it?

>(* dismount soapbox *)

Kriste!  Man, the first thing I noted, when I (and it was I who resurrected
the RFC's in the discussion of whether cr-lf is or is not a bug) brought up
the thorny issue of RFC-compliance was "I don't know if RFC-822 is the most
current RFC on this topic."  Please, don't get bent out of shape.  There is
apparently much confusion as to which RFC supersedes which prior RFC.  Why
is this so confusing?  It must be inherent in the way in which that info
is delivered...  In order to make comparisons to college catalogs, one would
have to have a corresponding RFC catalog.  So far, little has been said of
SPECIFIC RFC-INDEX references to RFC(s) that obsolete RFC-822.

To make matters worse, there is this concept that a later RFC can update
a previous RFC, or only obsolete a portion of a previous RFC.  What a load
of crap.  It would be much easier to interpret the letter of the law if
the old RFC's were entirely replaced with new ones.

And, the worst bit of it all is that people insist on saying "the RFC does
not really say what you think it says.. it really says that MY software is
compliant, and yours is not."

I believe I'll adopt the same understanding here that I've adopted in regards
to REAL law.. "Don't accept just anyones opinion as an expression of law."
Legal opinions may only be tendered by officers of the court.  Just because
a lay person says "Item X is illegal," does not make it so, regardless of how
it may otherwise appear to be intuitively correct.

So, who is the final, "legal" authority in determining whether a particular
interpretation of an RFC is the correct one?  And, could we please get that
body involved in this discussion, quickly?  Before we all waste more key-
strokes over this (apparently) emotional battle?

>- Alan

>----             email:                                  ,,,,  
>Alan Millar       amillar@bolis.SF-Bay.org            __oo  \  
>    (Remember: only YOU can prevent bang paths)         =___/  
>But Moses said "Oh, Lord, please send someone else to do it." -Exo. 4:13
-- 
Willard Dawson, BellSouth Advanced Networks, 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Ste. 880
Atlanta, GA  30342, Voice: +1 404 303 2343, UUCP: gatech!vdbsan!dawson
Internet -> X.400:  /G=W/S=DAWSON/O=BSAN/ADMD=BELLSOUTH/C=US/@sprint.com
Percent hack:  dawson%vdbsan@gatech.edu   ::    Standard disclaimer applies.