On 12/14/20 8:12 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 12/12/2020 10:57 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
As a developer for 40 years, I can safely say that reject or
discardable or whatever it was in ssp are all abundantly clear and
that nobody writing a filter would make the error that you keep
insisting that we would.
An appeal to authority? In this group? Really?
So that means that my citing 50 years of writing this kind of
networking standard and seeing exactly the kinds of misinterpretation
I'm expressing concern about carries more sway than your own
experience (which I suspect is a lot less than 40 years of writing
specifications for the public Internet, as to writing them for more
constrained environments.)
And the above is mostly meant to serve as a demonstration of just how
inappropriate an appeal to authority is, here.
Yes. I and developers like me are the target audience, not you. When we
tell you it's not a problem, you should listen to us rather than badger
us and tell us you know better. You have wasted years litigating a
non-problem, and continue to litigate conversational speech as if it
were some gigantic problem that will never be solved unless the world
over uses some never quite precise enough language. p=reject is
completely clear what its meaning and intent are. This is a waste of
time, and a major symptom of why IETF is considered sclerotic and to be
avoided if possible.
I started this thread about p=quarantine, not p=reject as the subject
makes abundantly clear. If you want to relitigate p=reject, kindly
create your own thread so I can more easily ignore it, and the chairs
can rule as out of scope because there is no ticket.
Mike
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
