On 06/Sep/10 01:12, John R. Levine wrote: >> [about] the informative vs. normative dilemma. > > I don't see how we can say anything normative to MLM or MUA > developers. That's not the business we're in.
Please forgive my ignorance on standardization issues. But doesn't a simple piece of advice, such as <<if rejecting for ADSP reasons, please use some 554 *ADSP* kind of reply>>, require a normative status? Of course none of those are legally enforced, they are just practices for making the Internet interoperable... > We can certainly document what MLMs do, and describe what we have > found to be effective Possibly, the From-%-rewriting belongs there, as someone said some lists do that (which ones?) > but I really don't think that there's any benefit to describing in > this document hypothetical paper designs for anything, much less > for large changes to MLMs for goals for which we have no consensus. > (An experimental RFC for paper designs would still be fine.) That "joint signatures" idea of mines presumably would have required an experimental I-D. However, I don't think I'll write any further about it, since there's no apparent interest (why, is it so ugly?) Thank you for your patience. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
