I read the posts as best I could and found some ambiguity.
I strongly believe nomail is important so I may be biased but it did not
appear to be cut and dry. In fact, some of the "No nomail" votes said
the objective could be accomplished in a different manner.
Since I didn't vote I do not feel I can raise the issue again. But it is
clear to me that summarily striking down any discussion of this item as
out of scope is not appropriate. Putting it in a box or deferring it may
be. But I would ask everyone to listen to the justification for nomail
regardless of when/if it is addressed. Many of our assumptions change as
design continues and input is received.
Would it help the discussion if large deployers of DKIM expressed their
opinions on nomail? (Again, they could express their opinions and this
item could still be held for later.)
pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen
Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 6:46 AM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard
stuff as out ofscope.
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hector,
Tomorrow I'll dig through the archive and find the reference
for where we agreed that the "nomail" requirement text that was
previously in the ssp-reqs draft would be excised.
If someone in an earlier TZ wants to do that in the meantime,
you'll have my thanks,
No volunteers eh;-)
So I went back in time and found:
Issue 1365 [1] included a mention that we could/shoud
delete the "never send mail" item.
That was raised by Eric on the list [2] in February and
dicussed at length.
Following that discussion I started a strawpoll [3] that
resulted in a 2:1 ratio [4] in favour of deprecating the
feature in SSP.
That's all nice and clear so "nomail" is out of scope, as
the WG agreed, even if not overwhelmingly. It seems like
all of the people who wanted to keep the feature then still
do, and I've not noticed anyone changing their mind. So,
there's no reason to reopen this that I can see.
So let's be grown-ups and move on,
Stephen.
[1] https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1365
[2] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007139.html
[3] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007185.html
[4] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007254.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html