[SpamCop-List] Re: NNTP and Usenet have NO standards, NO compliance can't be claimed (was: patent-fr)

[Philippe Verdy (n.o-s.p.a.m+abuse)]

"Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> a écrit dans le message de news: 
do21ob$pih$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> Regarding the use of Philippe's posting OE's QP in newsgroups including
> this one and quoting or citing him
>
> OE is a very very noncompliant newsreader, one of the worst.

Once again, you can't claim any compliance with a standard that DOES NOT 
EXIST.
The NNTP protocol has never reached the standard level, and has been left 
behind by the IETF in a temporary unterminated state since 20 years, with 
lots of known problems. And it has NEVER been considered for 
standardizationby the IESG.

Claiming compliance is completely illusory. So what remainsis a de facto 
standard created by the martket, where OE clearly dominates by far. 
Attempting to change this situation is a lost batlle until a standard is 
effectively published.

When I look at the list of people that initiated the RFC proposed in 1986, 
most of them,which signed it, are no longer working onthe subject and have 
stopped promoting it since long. So, even that RFC is dead as historic 
because it hasnot been maintained.

The "request for comment" was followed by a complete lack of action. Those 
that have commented it have contributed fr nothing. This is dead work. Don't 
blame OE that hascreated something that effectively interacts correctly for 
most users. The geeks that continue to use the dead and unmaintained 
references should better complain against the inaction of the IESG. Many of 
those that support what they call a standard are part of the working teams 
at the IESG.

So blame yourself for your absence of work since 20 years (even more when 
you consider the prior started work before the initial temporary publication 
of what was called a "proposed standard". Don't blame users to whom you have 
provided an unfinish tool.)

Nothing had been done except listing some informative extensions (including 
security extensions) which can't be standardized andmade interoperable as 
long as the base standard doesnot exist.

The IESG and IETF have proven their lack of responsability and their 
incompetence within the Usenet community, andwhat remains now is a very 
unsecure network, based on flawed protocols which is extremely US-centric, 
managed by people that claim competence in a standard that they have not 
even helped to make it trustable, and now attempting to solve the most 
serious problem that Usenet suffers today: spam (even worse than with email, 
because nobody is liable for its inaction).

So before claiming standard compliance, first militate and finance the 
working groups to create a true interoperable standard. I think that nobody 
really wantsto invest in it now, because there are better and more 
profitable networks now (including blogs that are much easier to control and 
manage for users that wish to discuss in working groups, and that really 
better protect the privacy of their users against obvious harnessing by 
spammers).