On Friday 08 September 2006 12:55, Dave Crocker wrote:
John Levine wrote:
discussion on the list continues to use a perspective that sounds like
the sender gets to dictate things, rather than that the receiver has the
option of using information.
OK, then quit griping and make a suggestion. Trust me, I completely
understand that the sender doesn't dictate. If it seems like I don't
understand that, then that means I didn't get the words right. I'm open to
suggestions on how to word things better.
Viewed alternatively, that might mean that it doesn't matter how proscriptive
the language pretends to be. In the end, receiver policy will dictate, so
why waste all the calories over wordsmithing that pretty well amounts to
arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
at every turn we should start by asking how a feature will benefit the
receive-side and what our basis is for believing that they will *see*
that benefit (and hence be motivated to use it)?
OK. If my bank published such a strong policy, as a receiver, I'd use it.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html