Shutting people up and scaring them out the WG hasn't worked for you very well nor removed the concerns. hmmmmm, on second thought, I guess it has worked for you to rubber stamp documents even when broken. This has been a long WG concern and problem to have out of scope considerations injected in DKIM that conflicts with everything else that was written. And for the record, I can't blame me - others have long stated the concerns of a single output focus has damaged DKIM - a single out that has no universally wide receiver payoff and non-existence (Trust Assessor) requirement.
Where are these batteries required? Dave CROCKER wrote: > > On 5/11/2011 2:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> 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. >> That is not in fact the purpose of the MLM I-D effort. > > > Since this has all been discussed multiple times before, I suggest it /not/ > be > discussed further, yet again. The outcome won't be any better this time than > it > has been in the past and there's no new material. > > d/ -- 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
