--Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Gordon,
GF> A breakage deemed acceptable by some is blasphemous, in the most
religious GF> sense, to others. We need to come to a consensus as to
what should be broken GF> and what should not before we can proceed[1].
Patrik said this, Ted said GF> this, Dave said this.
I do not recall endorsing breaking the mail service.
I think Gordon's claim was that you said something like "we need to come to
consensus.." not necessarily that "breaking stuff is ok". (Just a guess...
he may have been talking about a different Dave altogether :)
Speaking for myself, I *want* the current system to be as broken as
possible for forgeries, while breaking as little as possible for legitimate
uses. Herein lies the rub, of course, since there is a sliding scale
between "break nothing" and "break a lot".
Perhaps a long-term plan is called for where we have some immediate stuff
to phase in (for example, stuff that will break nothing at all and enforces
pre-existing RFCs) and some other stuff that phases in later (like, stating
that a previous practice is "deprecated" and *should* be phased out but
leaving a sunset interval for it)
Even so, there will be some tradeoffs to make. "Break nothing that works
now" is not a viable plan for introducing change. (I don't think that's
what Dave was voting for but the above one-liner could be misinterpreted
that way)
gregc
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>