On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, [email protected] wrote: > > > I agree with Cyrus. Even if the market has reached a workable compromise > > for the time being by using well-known host names, it has done so at the > > cost of flexibility which SRV records could provide. I think it would be > > very useful to document the naming conventions that will allow current > > clients to find the servers, but I don't believe that's a reason to *not* > > document a more robust and formal SRV record protocol as well in the hope > > that clients and configurations will move to that. > > Exactly right IMO.
Thanks for all your arguments. I have been convinced. Perhaps I should be less negative about the likelihood of deploying improvements... > I also fear that an effort to do something more elaborate with XML and web > servers and so on carries with it a very high liklihood of failure, and even > if > we manage to agree on something (probably at some distant point in the > future), > it will then fail to deploy. Actually I'm less negative about this because it has clearer benefits. For example it allows an operator to override an MUA's built-in preferences. The big question is whether we can get the various MUA vendors to co-operate instead of continuing to do their own thing. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.
