>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.
I run a bunch of mailing lists, but since I don't use Mailman, I'm not inclined to look at Mailman patches. Admittedly, there's very little chance I would change my working mailing list softare to work around the purported limitations of DMARC, but that chance drops to zero if I'm expected to reverse engineer someone else's code and figure out how to apply it to mine rather than look at a spec. R's, John _______________________________________________ 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)
