> ... but this working group has people who are prepared to spend > a lot of time to shout down those they disagree with, leading to an > unproductive and unprofessional environment. I find the lack of > courtesy and professionalism here unpleasant enough that I tend > not to get involved much, even though I see very poor design > decisions being made. ironically enough while i disagree with steve on most aspects of SSP, i feel the exact same way regarding his comments above.
(of particular frustration to me has been a large number of posts stating "SSP dictates receiver actions", etc.) it is quite clear the unmovable object and irresistable force have met in the form of diametrically opposed opinions on SSP that will not be changing. and this has led to unproductive and unprofessional discussions. > It's unavoidable to some degree - any mention of "antispam" tends > to bring the noisy kooks out of the woodwork - but it's not going to > lead to a well-engineered, useful protocol. again i agree but i think one man's antispam kook is another man's rational thinker. the same goes for useful protocols. pat _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
