On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 09:13:08AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
This has been disproved repeatedly. There is no functionality loss
whatsoever. A tiny, insigificant proportion of users will have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to bring their mail configurations into line with the overwhelming
standard practice.
That's also een mentioned repeatedly. Is there data to support the
claim?
If not, could we refrain from making it?
This group is chartered to make a proposal. It is not chartered to
consider whether the proposal is or is not a good idea.
The fact that the proposal is put forth is a tacit admission that the
group views the proposal as a good idea. In a very real sense, the
group must consider whether the proposal is of merit before releasing
it.
The fact that a particular set of ideas was sufficient in 1992 does
not mean that it continues to be sufficient in 2004. The patterns of
Internet usage and the trust relationships are far more complex.
I find this interesting. Above, you suggest that usage should not be a
consideration, and here you seem to suggest that today's usage should
shape our work. We must be careful to consider that certain use cases
_will_ break, and that others may value those use cases more than those
in this group.
We must also consider that ISPs are not the only ones affected by the
MARID work; normal businesses will be as well, and their use cases
differ from those of ISPs, sometimes substantially. Their ability to
adapt those use cases to comply with the model MARID puts forth may also
be hindered by technology and/or policy.
If you have an alternative proposal, make it to ASRG. If you have
no alternative proposal your comments are not relevant. We are
all aware of the points you keep raising, we just do not agree
with them.
Who is this "we" of which you speak?
--
Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin
mark(_at_)bitshift(_dot_)org
mark(_at_)seti(_dot_)org
Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org