"Brett McDowell" <brett(_dot_)mcdowell(_at_)me(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
As a newbie to this list, I have to say I agree. This has been a far less
collegial debate than what I'm used to. That said, I may be guilty of
reciprocating, and if anyone feels they have been on the receiving end of
such, I apologize.
...
I think your only offense is presenting a perspective based on operational
experience that varies from the preconceived notions of a substantial fraction
of the participants of this working group.
There has been considerable resistance to doing any standardized policy work
relative to DKIM. It's unfortunate that this resulted in policy having to be
bolted on to DKIM after it was designed because we were prohibited from doing
policy work as a part of DKIM development.
As far as I can see, the only problem with ADSP and your discussion of it is
that ADSP is guilty of doing exactly what it was designed to do with exactly
the limitations we said it would have when we designed it. The same people
that didn't like it then, don't like it now.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html