On 10/16/2010 1:07 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
This is disingenuous on your part. It is akin to saying that although
the common usage of hammers is to hit nails, we must accept within the
definition of normal the usage of beating people on the head with a
hammer.... simply because some people do and it is not documented
through warnings on hammers that this is not normal.
There is a subset of headers that the vast majority of informed (even
semi-informed) implementers would agree on. Perhaps we need to reach a
consensus and document this to protect the children.
Wow. From sophistry to disingenuous. Today seems to be when people think that
tossing in slams at motives, legitimacy and style somehow facilitates
discussion. It invites all sorts of responses in kind, none of which would be
constructive. And I've tossed in this comment merely to note how irritating
today's vocabulary choices are and suggest folks make more judicious choices.
My postings have constructive intent and serious thought behind them. The
might
be wrong, but they are not naive, frivolous, poorly intentioned, or any of the
other things that permit superficial dismissal. Please debate them on
substance; if you've missed the substance, please show the courtesy of simply
asking for clarification.
In any event, it's clear that at least two of you have entirely missed my
point.
So let's try this again, more carefully:
There is a fundamental difference between saying "something bad might happen"
versus "do this specific thing to provide this specific protection". One is a
generic warning. The other is a spec. The difference is not subtle.
Re-read my questions. They werequite precise. The text in the spec does not
provide precise answers; when it appears to provide precise answers, they were
not the result of informed thought:
"Which header fields are essential to protect?
How much of the message body is essential to protect?"
Let me emphasize: Most of the advice in the spec is not useful, except as
basic
reminders to an already-knowledgeable reader. "Useful" means that someone who
does not already knows the answer is able to figure out the answer from the
guidance that is given or the guidance tells them how to go about finding out
the answer. They can't do that with what is in the spec.
I don't mean we should rip out all the advice, merely that we need to
distinguish between soft advice and serious, technical specification.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html