Friday, Dec 4, 2015 11:54 AM Dave Crocker wrote: > Hence, queries of the 'show your work' type move into the realm of > etended tutorial to non-experts, rather than helping to the vetting of > foundational issues for creating a working group.
I share your discomfort. However, my concern with the approach of simply refusing to answer questions on the grounds you state is twofold: first, it excludes any participation by stakeholders other than anti-spam developers, and there are other stakeholders. Second, it preserves the status quo, which is clearly broken. By which I do not mean that you all are not doing good work: what I mean is that because you are so effective at minimizing spam, there is no incentive to actually clean up many of the messes you are working around at the moment. >From my perspective, quite a bit of useful information has already been shared >as a result of this discussion, and it would be nice if that information were >collected somewhere. I think that there's more work to be done. It may be >bothersome to folks who don't feel that these questions need to be answered, >but I don't think it's realistic to think that if you just protest loudly >enough, they will stop getting asked, or that the practice of header redaction >will not become more widespread. -- Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/[email protected]
pgpNY9plzHP13.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Shutup mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shutup
