Michael Thomas wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Evidently you missed the massive number of discussions both in the
working group and elsewhere that agreed that SSP was about unsigned
messages. And, just for the heck of it, note that you missed the
"error" about this in the DKIM Overview draft that has been
circulating for quite a few months.
You specifically said "began". That is completely historically
inaccurate going back many, many years. In fact from the very
beginning.
Gosh, Michael. I thought I was part of those initial discussions, too, and I
am quite sure that my memory is just as strong about this as yours.
In fact, I remember pressing this concern from the start.
Given how little serious discussion has taken place in this working
group, and how little effort there has been to summarize discussions,
it is not surprising that you are quite convinced that you know
exactly what the right perspective is. You haven't been pressed to
consider that the views you prefer are seriously challenged.
You made a categorical statement that the goals have "morphed". This
is completely false, and will remain false regardless of how many times
you repeat it.
Yeah. Those of us who disagree with you have entirely messed up memories
while those who agree have perfect memories. No chance your assessment might
even possibly be off the mark. Better to just dismiss any concerns that are
expressed.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html