Handling DSN as an SMTP extension was a serious error. DSN was designed
to achieve something users don't care about, namely guaranteeing an ``I
dunno'' response when no other response was forthcoming, at the expense
of what the users actually wanted, namely return receipts.
You know, we really shouldn't have these debates over and over on
email. It's tiring and wastes time for both of us and for other
people on the list who have heard it all before.
I propose a truce: Why don't you write up a web page for each of
the things that I did that you want to gripe about. For each of
those (okay, some subset of those) I'll either write up a rebuttal
or write a page that explains things from my point-of-view.
I'll link to your page on that topic from my page on the same topic,
and you link to mine from yours. The links themselves should be
value-neutral (e.g. "Dan's/Keith's opinion on this topic") and
plainly visible within the document, but of course the rest of
the content would be up to the author.
Then when the subject comes up in future discussions, one or both of
us will just send a pointer to his URL unless there's something new
to say. If there's something new to say, we'll just post the new thing
with a minimum of re-elaboration and then add *that* to the web page.
Of course, it should be symmetrical: the same arrangement would apply
to things that you've done that I want to gripe about.
You probably have some of those pages written already.
You can let me know by private email which ones those are.
The main thing we'd each be agreeing to do is:
a) link to the other's page if/when there is one
b) not re-iterate the same argument in public email unless there's
something new to say
I propose we try it for six months and see how well it works.
Deal?
Keith