[ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change
mike at mtcc.com
Thu Dec 6 08:57:44 PST 2007
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
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.
More information about the ietf-dkim