On Jun 5, 2007, at 9:09 AM, stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie
wrote:
On Jun 4, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
It is not clear why a "no mail sent" assertion must be excluded
from a policy statement.
Well... because that was the concensus. Feel free to re-read the
archive, but basically: End of story.
Consensus does not necessarily produce a solution that improves
security.
Are you saying that you'd like to ignore the established WG
consensus and plan to continue on discussing this topic on the DKIM
WG list regardless of the fact that we've thrashed this and one of
the WG chairs has specifically asked you to stop?
If the answer is anything synonymous with "no", there's no need to
respond, let's just move on. If the answer is anything else, please
send it to Barry and I off-list.
Stephen and Barry,
My apologies. Will all due respect, deciding WG issues individually
in abstract rather than in respect to a complete strategy appears to
be leading to poor outcome. Perhaps that is why a camel is described
as a horse designed by committee. The _only_ issue worthy of
discussion is whether the final result is as safe as possible. That
can not be determined on a piecemeal basis. Analysis requires
comparisons between whole strategies. That is _not_ being done.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html