Barry Leiba wrote: >> Change that stupid section 2. background last paragraph to one tells >> the "truth" and it is 100% compatibility with everyone needs, > > It's unnecessary and unwelcome to call what other people > write "stupid". >
I can see where calling it stupid is unwelcome. > It's also the case that while you think it doesn't "tell the truth", > it seems to me that everything in that paragraph is an accurate > assessment of what's in the DKIM base spec, and agrees with rough > consensus of the working group. I don't agree, it is technically incorrect with false conclusions that is unmatched anyway else and if that wasn't true than you won't need any discussions regarding Author Domains for this document for that matter. After all, that was the original purpose of this MLM I-D effort when many people had express concerns with the MLM/DKIM conflicts and lack of respect for ADSP and me showing real examples for the interoperability problem - it was only then that gave life to this document. Rough consensus in the group really doesn't match the many concerns over the years with this issue and its unfortunate they aren't around anymore to express their input. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
