On 5/18/10 5:28 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > That doesn't seem to be about mailing lists. > > I don't see that we're re-opening ADSP now and we're not > chartered for that, so I don't really see much point in > this discussion. > > So perhaps take that discussion offlist? > Stephen,
Deprecating "all" to "except-mlist" and "rejectable" is about dealing with message state changed by mailing lists. Without this state change, there would not be an issue. IMHO, the suggestion for changing ADSP assertions does not resolve the uncertainty, but instead creates risks related to mailing list operation, when they then become exploitation targets. Perhaps John and Michael are right, and people need explicit instruction. Nevertheless, these instructions should not be spelled out in ADSP assertion mnemonics. That is the purpose of the RFC being discussed. I agree, the chartered work is not aimed at changing the spelling of ADSP assertions, but instead at explaining how they are best used. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. P.S. It turned out leaving Ireland was not as hoped. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
