On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:18 AM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-list-canon/ >>>> [it] introduces new ML requirements. >>> So rather than offer dismissive, summary comments, >>> please offer criticisms of technical substance. >> i would rather not waste time on elaborate thesis >> about YADA [yet another DKIM addon]. someone who has >> time will do it and they can add my vote apriori. > You think it is ok to waste everyone's time by > offering your personal, summary-dismissal notes, > but not substantive criticism? depends how u define substantive criticism. i DID say: "it introduces new ML requirements". "introducing new ML requirements" has already been characterised as not an ML solution. we have a few of them already, and all much simpler than any YADAs. > An example of why postings like you've > sent are unhelpful is that it implicitly > invites others to offer summarily-dismissive > notes about your notes. walk what u preach then and don't do it. sometimes ignoring is the best approach. i'm not looking to find ur approval, but those who stand on the same viewpoint as i do. > There's nothing productive about such a path. there's also nothing productive in *personal* thinking that DKIM is a holy grail of authorization, and based on that *personal* motivation, sponging endless YADAs [aka yet another DKIM addons], wasting urs and our time in process. yet u do it. so i do it, and we r here, doing this. nothing new. it's just who we r. -- Vlatko Salaj aka goodone http://goodone.tk _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
