The important issue here, the one that people's attention must focus
on, is to thwart the attempt to exclude free software operating
systems from full participation in email.
"Rule of law" is an admirable concept; it means that governments'
actions towards the public are limited by laws. Would that the US
government followed this principle. It is not applicable to the
present situation, both because we are not talking about limiting the
actions of a government, and because mere rules are not laws.
Since you mention laws, please note that even laws carry no automatic
moral authority; they have to earn it. It is often morally justified
for individuals to break laws. It wasn't wrong to get an abortion in
1960, or to flee to evade the draft, even though both were illegal in
the US. It wasn't wrong for mixed-race couples to marry, or live
together, even though that was illegal too in some states. Even the
law recognizes that breaking laws is justified, when necessary to
prevent something worse from happening. If we were to misapply the
standards of laws to mere rules, this would be such a case if ever
there was one.
The members of the IETF surely cannot want petty matters to preclude
the thorough and proper consideration a potential serious problem that
would affect all of society.
Most of the technical questions a standards committee deals with are
purely technical; they make systems function better or worse in
various cases. Finding the right decision in those questions is
purely a technical matter.
Not every technical question is purely technical in its consequences.
Some have social implications. One of the lessons society learned
after some bad experiences in the 40s and 50s was that scientists and
engineers must take account of the social consequences of their work.
To bury one's head in engineering and ignore its impact is socially
irresponsible.
Surely no one will advocate that the IETF make its decisions in such a
manner. Let us therefore make sure that this standard is not
restricted.