On Jan 24, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
You are picking a particular case structured by yourself to say
"See, this check is irrelevent". You ignore any other use cases
regardless of outcome.
Mike,
I think the biggest challenge in discusses this area of standards is
to deal with just this: particular cases. Email is used is so many
different ways, what works for one scenario well might not work for
another.
The issue is not that one is right and another wrong, but that doing
something to affect one needs to worry quite a bit about how it
affects another.
At a minimum, this is why I've become fond of emphasizing the need
to make explicit statements about the scenarios for which something
is applicable.
If the final version of SSP is useful for only a limited set of
scenarios -- and I believe most of us expect that -- that's fine, as
long as this is clear.
So far, scenarios to which SSP will not work seem to be what has
been ignored, IMO.
Well said.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html