[ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change

[Michael Thomas]

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> 
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>> And as far as I can tell, you alone seem to be carrying this torch
>> here. Changing what we agreed on with rfc5016 should require a very
>> high barrier. I see little if any support, let alone broad consensus
>> that we got it wrong.
> 

   You still didn't respond: did you read 5016 before it was issued?
   In fact I know that you did because you gave a lot of very detailed
   feedback. And this was not one of the thing you commented on at the
   time, so charges of "paradigm change" ring rather hollow.

> So, you missed the postings by Levine and Atkins?  (Perhaps some others 
> were on "my" side of this topic, but these two were at least quite 
> explicit.

   I didn't read them as supporting your reading. Let them speak for
   themselves. There are a lot of things being discussed, after all.

> I guess they don't know much about the topic or anti-abuse recipient 
> operations behavior, so it's probably ok to keep this an individual ad 
> hominem dismissal.

   Saying that you need broad consensus to change the documented
   consensus is hardly an ad hominem dismissal.

> I've tried to recruit postings by some other anti-abuse folks who have 
> expressed strongly negative opinions, but they have declined, indicating 
> that they try to avoid being abused, and do not see any indication of 
> interest in serious discussion about this in this group.
> 
>  From the style of quite a few postings on the list, can you blame them?

   Ah, the silent majority. Still silent after all these years.

		Mike