On 8/4/2021 8:41 PM, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net> said:
This has changes intended to cover the existing use of the field.
For covenience, consider:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-crocker-email-deliveredto-05
It still is missing the point. The thing in the Delivered-To line is a
token, which usually is not an address or a mailbox, even though it
might look like one. The draft refers to "include each address
that led to the final delivery" or "Delivering the same message more
than once to the same address" or "The header field contains information about
the
individual mailbox" but the thing in the header isn't an address or a mailbox.
I still don't see any reason to claim this is an experiment. We have
20 years of experience with Delivered-To. It seenm unlikely that
anyone plans to change the way they do or do not add the header at
this point.
Once again, a survey of existing practice could be useful.
John,
You are persisting in your attempt to avoid the use of detailed
technical information. Instead you are repeatedly invoking an appeal to
authority, posing yourself as the authority. You are repeatedly making
firm assertions of definitive, dismissive conclusions, without showing
your work.
So far, however, the data that have been provided do not substantiate
your dismissive views.
On the other hand, since your conclusions make clear that you view
yourself as having definitive knowledge about objective truth, here, it
should not be difficult for you to document the factual basis for your
conclusions. And yet, for some reason, you have not done so, in spite
of repeated requests.
I note that you were a solid supporter of this draft, notably changing
only after you got some (frankly, very mild) pushback on 1 August. I'm
sure that's merely coincidental. I'm equally sure that you would not be
motivated by such pettiness. Still, it's an unfortunate linkage.
What is more unfortunate is your persistent effort to attempt
intimidation rather than constructive participation. Bullying is a
hallmark of insecurity. This particular style of bullying is one that
the IETF not only fails to deal with, but frankly rewards. That, of
course, is worse than unfortunate, since it encourages others to keep
away and damages the quality of the work done in the IETF.
As for the last line of your above posting, you are encouraged to use
your extensive knowledge on this topic and to produce that survey.
Given the strength of your views about the header field, it won't take
you much time.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp