Re: [ietf-smtp] [Shutup] Proposed Charter for the "SMTP Headers Unhealth

Friday, Dec 4, 2015 11:54 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> Hence, queries of the 'show your work' type move into the realm of
> etended tutorial to non-experts, rather than helping to the vetting of
> foundational issues for creating a working group.
I share your discomfort.   However, my concern with the approach of simply 
refusing to answer questions on the grounds you state is twofold: first, it 
excludes any participation by stakeholders other than anti-spam developers, and 
there are other stakeholders.   Second, it preserves the status quo, which is 
clearly broken.   By which I do not mean that you all are not doing good work: 
what I mean is that because you are so effective at minimizing spam, there is 
no incentive to actually clean up many of the messes you are working around at 
the moment.

> From my perspective, quite a bit of useful information has already been shared 
> as a result of this discussion, and it would be nice if that information were 
> collected somewhere.   I think that there's more work to be done.   It may be 
> bothersome to folks who don't feel that these questions need to be answered, 
> but I don't think it's realistic to think that if you just protest loudly 
> enough, they will stop getting asked, or that the practice of header redaction 
> will not become more widespread.

--
Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io

My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com

pgpcPatnFZXuA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp