[top quoting fixed, extra words deleted, and the Reference: header
restored. All due to brain-dead mail software.]
In
<C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BEB8E(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
David Woodhouse [mailto:dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org] wrote:
On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 13:59 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
This work plan does not include
scopes outside of "mail from" and "pra", and it is our opinion that no
new work items of this type should be considered until MARID has
successfully produced a first specification.
I strongly disagree with this opinion. I believe that it does not make
sense to have multiple scopes, and certainly not to plan to add even
more scopes later. I shall explain my reasoning:
I agree with Andy.
No, apparently you agree with David Woodhouse. It is easy to get
confused when you don't use proper quoting.
I thought we should have done this all along.
Yes, I know. This was discussed long ago. The rough consensus was
against your opinion. I thought that while there should be multiple
scopes, we could have one record that covered them all. The rough
consensus was against my opinion.
Now, can we *PLEASE* stop re-raising old issues everything someone new
comes into this working group?
-wayne