Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Perhaps you can clarify the purpose of your note. How should it be
incorporated into the IETF's deliberations?
The point I was trying to make is that there seems to be an inherent
assumption by some people, perhaps because the people who make these
assumptions run large mail servers, that the problem with someone who
is wrongly blocked
...
My main point, though, is that in some cases, the ultimate recipient
may have a much greater interest in receiving the e-mail
Ted,
I asked how your comments were relevant to current IETF deliberations and you
responded by re-asserting your complaints.
We have all suffered slights from one service provider or another. Shall we all
burden the IETF list with recitations of them?
To the extent that you believe there is a larger issue, as you appear to, based
on your saying "inherent assumption by some people" you provide no documentation
that it is pervasive or significantly problematic for email operation, nor that
it is a matter the IETF can do anything about.
Email abuse is extremely frustrating. We all understand that. Some of us put
quite a bit of effort trying to find ways to counter it. But I fail to see how
it helps to use the IETF list for venting one's favorite, latest example of a
problem with getting something resolved.
Really: If there is a larger issue that the IETF can and should tackle, then
let's talk about it. But I'm still not seeing how the thread you started qualifies.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
