On 12/5/2020 3:37 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 12/5/20 3:24 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 12/5/2020 3:15 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Can you keep your contempt for me off this list? This is not even
responsive to what I wrote, and is nothing more than an ad hominem.
Wow. It wasn't an ad hominem.
"You can say, no I am smarter than those guys and I REALLY REALLY mean
it, but see 2) above."
This is really not about questioning my intelligence. eye roll. If I
said the same thing to you, you'd be screaming bloody murder to the
chairs to try to get me banned again.
Note that what you have just done is, in fact, an ad hominem and
arguably does violate IETF participation rules.
Again, the response you are objecting two exactly followed the
linguistic form of the setup you offered. As such, the response was not
directly at you, the author of the posting, but at the hypothetical
person you formulated.
If the publisher of the DMARC record cannot accurately state its
desires/policy, that is a deficiency in the protocol. Reject means I
want you to reject it. It doesn't carve out exceptions. ARC is trying
to carve out exceptions. If it wants an exception, the originating
domain should have a say in whether it desires the receiving domain to
carve out an exception one way or the other.
The domain owner might want all sorts of unreasonable things. Having a
way to let the domain owner publish demands that are widely ignored
indicates a seriously flawed semantic model. And that is, indeed, the
current reality for DMARC.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
[email protected]
408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
