On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > Although it does prompt the question of why you are working so hard to > avoid responding to the substance of the question I asked. > > And no, I'm not expecting a useful response.
Dave, I apologize for frustrating you. Neither you nor I have any particular standing relating to the list's administration, and thus, little recourse when an attempt to steer a conversation in a certain direction is rebuffed. What you call carefully formed, I look at and go, interesting questions, but very cart before the horse, and I'm not a student in attendance at a lecture you're presenting, so, no, you don't get to call on me and demand that I answer you. I find the tactic distasteful and declined to respond to it as you desired. Back to the point, which is: I'd like to understand the operational issue before I'm willing to jump to the existential crisis of what I should or shouldn't want from a list archive. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to answer your questions -- I'm very much willing to do so. But you've jumped ahead in the discussion. I still don't understand what changed and why it is considered bad. I saw John say, "the mail going into the archive isn't the same as the mail going out to the list." In what way? I look at the archive and I see several ways. I see different headers. Obfuscation of email addresses to prevent spambot harvesting. Web markup and navigational links inserted, to account for the very different protocols used to interact with a web page versus an email message. And, of course, the fact that the archive is showing you a representation of the submitter's address, even though the emailed copy may have had a rewritten from address to deal with DMARC policy. A web archived copy of a message posted to the list doesn't look like the email copy I received, in a bunch of different ways. Regards, Al Iverson _______________________________________________ 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)
