IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] How we decide (was: Re: Call for Adoption draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap)

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sun, 13 May 2012 10:41 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04AAE21F8647 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 May 2012 03:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.472
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GMx0BQTstQDK for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 May 2012 03:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A565C21F8639 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 May 2012 03:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4DAf0ww011014; Sun, 13 May 2012 03:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120513020649.0aa455e8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 03:40:08 -0700
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811FFC4@exch-mbx901.corp.cl oudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811ECBB@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120511165259.09522610@resistor.net> <CAC4RtVAphPhn4HpCkn6=bYcpjV7OPRmx3zMNLiTkffSWjhLgGQ@mail.gmail.com> <5F7401D1EDD86FC7ECE491BC@PST.JCK.COM> <6.2.5.6.2.20120512212108.0903a250@resistor.net> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811FFC4@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] How we decide (was: Re: Call for Adoption draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 10:41:20 -0000

Hi Murray,
At 01:07 13-05-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>That's certainly your prerogative, though in my case I would prefer 
>to remain co-operative.  You might not concur with your stance, for 
>example, if the roles one day are

It is also up to the author(s) to be co-operative.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email