At Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:53:36 -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > > Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Speaking as someone who just got burned by exactly such a list, > > I think I need to agree with John: I don't object to the IETF > > publishing an informational document on this, but a PS implies > > that IETF endorses the practice, which I don't think we should do. > > > Eric, > > Roughly 95% of all mail is spam. That makes email a pretty onerous > "practice". > > So we ought to remove standards status for all email specifications.
I don't think this follows from my comment. > Or we could consider keeping mechanism and policy separate, standardizing > technologies (mechanisms) and refraining from condemning them because some > operators have misguided policies and use the mechanisms badly. This sounds like a false choice to me. > Really, guys, everything we standardize has examples of misuse. So that > hardly > makes your current line of argument substantive. You're certainly welcome to have that opinion, but I don't think that's what I'm saying. For the reasons Keith is suggesting, among others, I don't think this is a very good mechanism and therefore the IETF shouldn't endorse it. As I said, I don't have a problem with this document being advanced as Informational, but PS is different. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
