[ietf-dkim] Re: Discussing what someone said about SSP - productive?

[Steve Atkins]

On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:

> Steve Atkins wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess that's a yes.
>>>
>>> If you believe that any random MTA has an equal right to emit  
>>> mail claiming to
>>> be from my domain, then I think there's little left to discuss.
>> If you don't want people to forward your mail, then you're not  
>> obliged
>> to send mail to them.
>> If, on the other hand, you want to participate in a store-and-forward
>> protocol then you don't get to say that other hosts are not  
>> allowed to
>> emit mail claiming to be from your domain.
>
> Why are you seizing on the narrow word emit,

"Emit" is a pretty well defined word.

> when it was pretty
> clear that by emit he meant "invented out of whole cloth"?

No, it wasn't. It did appear that he hadn't considered the implications
of his statement, but that's why we share our thoughts with our peers,
so that they can consider them from a different perspective and share
with us their interpretations and concerns about our writing, the  
meaning
behind it and the implications on the rest of the universe. Right?

> For
> somebody who copping to being above the fray, that's a rather
> uncharitable reading. Or perhaps even a reducto ad hominem!
>
> I'll ask you the same as Dave:
>
> >>>> I assume you know what the meaning of "disenfranchise" is as  
> you've
> >>>> chosen to use it twice now. A legitimate user of my domain  
> name is
> >>>> exactly who I say is legitimate. There is no vote to be had on  
> that
> >>>> issue, and as such no vote to be taken away. Do you seriously  
> dispute
> >>>> that?
>
> Unlike Dave's response, you have a chance to answer yes or no.
> If there's some "excluded middle", please name it.

You'd need to be more specific. As you state it, my answer is that  
you're
clearly and obviously wrong.

If you were to be more specific in your wording (and the specificity  
went
in the direction I'd expect) there's a chance I'd agree with you, but  
at the
moment what you're saying is so broad and vague that it's clearly wrong.

Cheers,
   Steve