> Scott, I have many problems with your response. Was it intended as an ad > hominem? > It certainly came across that way.
It doesn't seem even remotely so to me. Please be careful with attributing intent. No one tried to say that we shouldn't listen to you. > If the NP objective can be stated in a sentence or two, you should have done > so, instead of > telling me to read years of archive. An objective that cannot be explained > tersely is not sufficiently > defined. It *is* reasonable to expect you to review earlier discussions, rather than to ask the working group to revisit them without a sense of how you're adding new information. Barry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
