Wietse Venema wrote: > Michael Thomas: >> I just don't get it. It seems to me that people who are advocating >> changing the spec are doing it in a complete vacuum of the wide >> deployment out there. Is DKIM broken? Manifestly not even a little >> which is quite remarkable. >> >> Every single suggestion has been debated in the past, and every >> suggestion if adopted would cause a wave of incompatibility >> problems. Any supposed "simplification" of the spec would be >> radically outweighed by dealing with the complexity of those >> incompatibilities. So "simplification" is not a valid argument. >> >> So what is the real motivation here? Is the real intent to cripple >> further deployment? Or maybe people don't have enough to do with >> their day jobs? Or maybe the thrill of making dev managers lives >> suck is just irresistible? >> >> If not, what? > > This is not a discussion. This is an accusation. I will not play > your game, and I can only hope that others won't either.
I am offended too with you continued idiotic proposals to destabilized a RFC protocol and the WG make people take sides, and quite frankly, you are the only one who has cursed people out, telling people to SHUT THE F%^K UP. Don't be posing like you are anything close to being civilized - you are far from it. Mr. Thomas has all the right to express his views and discomfort with whats going on. As far as I am concern, you are a one principle reasons why POLICY was ruined and now its going to happen to the BASE protocol. How do you like those apples? -- Sincerely Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
