We seem to agree that discard means "throw away".
Evidently. But I do have the advantage of knowing what I meant when I
wrote the section we're arguing about.
Now I'm really getting confused John. On the one hand you argue that
there are hordes of panting implementers anxiously awaiting the
opportunity to publish borked (a technical term) ADSP records (compared
to their mailing practices) thus creating a situation where their very
important mail will be discarded by any receiver that follows the
instructions of those implementers. (If the mail was not important then
there would not be many - if any - complaints to receivers and this
discussion would be moot.)
That's why, as I have consistently argued since day 1, the correct thing
for implementers to do is to ignore ADSP completely, since there is
nothing you can do with it that will produce better results than ignoring
it.
So ADSP is a broken spam filter? Why would you present yourself as the
co-author of a broken spam filter?
As I think I made pretty clear at the time, I crowbared my way into the
ADSP effort to try to minimize the damage. If it were up to me, we would
have abandoned the effort without producing any RFC at all, but there
were too many people who believed (and apparently some who still believe)
that it's a magic bullet against something.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html