On 7/3/2012 4:02 PM, Al Iverson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
Is there a simple description of the design for this proposal, other than
the code? Debating design is best done with design documents, not code.
The code is good for demonstrating feasibility, but not concepts.
I'm not sure that's an appropriate response. It comes off as an
insult, a complaint that he didn't share this exactly the way you
wanted it shared.
I don't think it is insulting to request that a proposal for changing or
enhancing an architecture be cast as a proposal or a spec, rather than
only offered as code. This is an ad hoc standards efforts and the
methods of making proposals in such environments is through a document
that explores the core issues, rather than requiring code review.
What DMARC constructs are changed and/or what mailing list behaviors are
changed?
You should subscribe to the test list and see. It's pretty
interesting, and it kinda fits with what I was thinking.
I wasn't aware that the -test list was the place for proposing system
enhancements. Nor was it cited.
I have been meaning to also set up a test Google Group and Yahoo Group
to see how they handle headers and the concepts of authentication and
who the sender is and how the sender is identified. My personal
experience with both is a bit out of date.
I strongly urge anybody else who has an opinion about what should or
shouldn't be done by mailing lists in this modern age do the same.
Sorry for my confusion, but "do the same" what?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
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)
