On 06/Sep/10 01:12, John R. Levine wrote:
[about] the informative vs. normative dilemma.
I don't see how we can say anything normative to MLM or MUA
developers. That's not the business we're in.
Please forgive my ignorance on standardization issues. But doesn't a
simple piece of advice, such as <<if rejecting for ADSP reasons,
please use some
554 *ADSP*
kind of reply>>, require a normative status? Of course none of those
are legally enforced, they are just practices for making the Internet
interoperable...
We can certainly document what MLMs do, and describe what we have
found to be effective
Possibly, the From-%-rewriting belongs there, as someone said some
lists do that (which ones?)
but I really don't think that there's any benefit to describing in
this document hypothetical paper designs for anything, much less
for large changes to MLMs for goals for which we have no consensus.
(An experimental RFC for paper designs would still be fine.)
That "joint signatures" idea of mines presumably would have required
an experimental I-D. However, I don't think I'll write any further
about it, since there's no apparent interest (why, is it so ugly?)
Thank you for your patience.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html