Post Ay45JbPHPLhmHJdeCW by Linux_in_a_Bit@infosec.exchange
 (DIR) More posts by Linux_in_a_Bit@infosec.exchange
 (DIR) Post #Ay10EbjrfCo0cCBbBQ by Linux_in_a_Bit@infosec.exchange
       2025-09-09T00:55:04Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       :blobcatthink: I think there's a problem with Postel's law. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle )Where is the incentive for a sender to do anything right, if the recipient allows it to do everything wrong?
       
 (DIR) Post #Ay10Ecx19mvANHLcK8 by cnx@awkward.place
       2025-09-09T02:06:08.931738Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Linux_in_a_Bit, since all (meaningful) programs serves a purpose, it's no benevolent reason to send out the wrong messages.
       
 (DIR) Post #Ay2zL80qs53moJb4Vc by Linux_in_a_Bit@infosec.exchange
       2025-09-10T00:48:37Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cnx Sure, but nowadays odds are it's some 'vibe-coded' app made by somebody who has no idea what they're doing...
       
 (DIR) Post #Ay2zL90BC47HsWI36G by Linux_in_a_Bit@infosec.exchange
       2025-09-10T00:49:54Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cnx Or simply some unintended behavior that was never caught or some function that "works, but I have no idea how" .
       
 (DIR) Post #Ay2zL9ewkUj5uxMbdw by cnx@awkward.place
       2025-09-10T01:05:32.184295Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Errors always exist, @Linux_in_a_Bit, I was noting that there's always an incentive for a client to fix them.  Servers don't have to actively participate in the debugging process.
       
 (DIR) Post #Ay45JbPHPLhmHJdeCW by Linux_in_a_Bit@infosec.exchange
       2025-09-10T01:29:36Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cnx there's always an incentive for a client to fix themThat's the part I object to.Not that there isn't, just that the incentives you're referring to can, at least in certain environments, be so weak that they mean virtually nothing.
       
 (DIR) Post #Ay45JcjsSFm8PUHbwe by Linux_in_a_Bit@infosec.exchange
       2025-09-10T01:32:21Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cnx If recipients don't enforce standards, senders don't have to follow them.That fragments a standard and makes it effectively meaningless.You can kinda see this happen in a lot of web standards. I think they like to call them "living standards" but all it really means is that you have to do things like Google Chrome in order to be compatible.Chromium can be as broken as the things it connects to will let it, as long as it stays dominant.It effectively becomes an anti-standard.Recipients have to be strict, otherwise the senders will, over time, take advantage of every little flaw. Y'know, like https://xkcd.com/1172/
       
 (DIR) Post #Ay45JdrMHvLzsyn6FE by Linux_in_a_Bit@infosec.exchange
       2025-09-10T01:35:31Z
       
       0 likes, 1 repeats
       
       @cnx Another related example: https://www.gekk.info/articles/traceroute.htm