Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
And as far as I can tell, you alone seem to be carrying this torch
here. Changing what we agreed on with rfc5016 should require a very
high barrier. I see little if any support, let alone broad consensus
that we got it wrong.
You still didn't respond: did you read 5016 before it was issued?
In fact I know that you did because you gave a lot of very detailed
feedback. And this was not one of the thing you commented on at the
time, so charges of "paradigm change" ring rather hollow.
So, you missed the postings by Levine and Atkins? (Perhaps some others
were on "my" side of this topic, but these two were at least quite
explicit.
I didn't read them as supporting your reading. Let them speak for
themselves. There are a lot of things being discussed, after all.
I guess they don't know much about the topic or anti-abuse recipient
operations behavior, so it's probably ok to keep this an individual ad
hominem dismissal.
Saying that you need broad consensus to change the documented
consensus is hardly an ad hominem dismissal.
I've tried to recruit postings by some other anti-abuse folks who have
expressed strongly negative opinions, but they have declined, indicating
that they try to avoid being abused, and do not see any indication of
interest in serious discussion about this in this group.
From the style of quite a few postings on the list, can you blame them?
Ah, the silent majority. Still silent after all these years.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html