Re: [ietf-dkim] list vs contributor signatures, was Wrong Discussion

[Dave CROCKER]

> More than expecting to, we are actively working on deployments with parties
> interested in "opting-in" to this open, standards-based, authenticated email
> ecosystem.  Unfortunately for the sake of this debate, I cannot disclose who
> just yet.


A problem, here, is that you are using that citation as a kind of proof of the
correctness of your position, but we do not have access to the data to make an
independent assessment.

On the average, much of the argumentation in this thread -- by most of the 
participants -- seems to be in a style that asserts one person's expertise over
another's, and generally seems inclined to refrain from considering details
either for or against a position.  Ad hominen or hostile tone is then mixed in 
to make the defender (or attacker) feel superior while nonetheless failing to 
respond with substance.

In a serious discussion, I'd expect to see someone's offering a specific
criticism, concern, counter-example or the like to get a response that
incorporates what was offered, responding to the particulars.  For some reason,
discussion here seems to be resistance to such a substantive clarifying efforts.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html