Shutting people up and scaring them out the WG hasn't worked for you
very well nor removed the concerns. hmmmmm, on second thought, I
guess it has worked for you to rubber stamp documents even when
broken. This has been a long WG concern and problem to have out of
scope considerations injected in DKIM that conflicts with everything
else that was written. And for the record, I can't blame me - others
have long stated the concerns of a single output focus has damaged
DKIM - a single out that has no universally wide receiver payoff and
non-existence (Trust Assessor) requirement.
Where are these batteries required?
Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/11/2011 2:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
After all, that was the original purpose of this MLM I-D effort when
many people had express concerns with the MLM/DKIM conflicts and lack
of respect for ADSP and me showing real examples for the
interoperability problem - it was only then that gave life to this
document.
That is not in fact the purpose of the MLM I-D effort.
Since this has all been discussed multiple times before, I suggest it /not/
be
discussed further, yet again. The outcome won't be any better this time than
it
has been in the past and there's no new material.
d/
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html