On 6/25/12 10:24 AM, "Dave Crocker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> As such, any proposal should provide a basis for believing that the >change will be highly useful AND a basis for making that assertion. I would add that such proposals need to include some threat analysis of how the extension could be abused. The "hole" thus created can't offset the utility of the proposal, or the idea is not worth pursuing. > >This sort of requirement is what distinguishes an engineering standards >discussion from a more abstract intellectual/academic pursuit. The >latter are entirely valid, but it's important not to confuse the two. +1 -MSK > _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
