On 5/10/2014 4:48 PM, Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 5/9/2014 7:10 PM, Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss wrote: >>> This feels like complaining for complaining's sake. >> >> You think that it's irrelevant that a mailing archive archives something >> different from what mailing list members receive??? > > I'm trying to figure out what invisible yet inviolable rule is being > broken here. What does "something different" in this case mean and how > is it bad?
My question was rather carefully formed. It was/is intended to abstract from the specific to what, I believe, is the essential issue. Stated as an affirmative: An archive should record what recipients receive. The usual utility of an archive is the it meets that basic expectations. Consequently when an archive doesn't, that is a problem. For example, it rather obviously raises the question of what other deviations might exist. So I'll repeat the question: Do you think an archive should reflect what recipients got? If you don't, why not? 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)
