[Asrg] Willfull and intentional misunderstandings

["Alan DeKok" <[e-mail]>]

Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> As to the issue of reading the draft, it is interesting that folks keep
> assuming that I haven't, rather than attending to the points that I have
> been raising.

  Maybe I'm the one on crack, but I've seen responses which, to me,
address the points you raise.  These responses get ignored.

  I'm assuming that you either haven't read the draft, or that you are
willfully and intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting it.
This opinion is based on your messages to this list. To quote:

https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04287.html

>> RMX asks the owner of the domain about a purported relationship to
>> some other domain,

  That is absolute, total nonsense.

  Through DNS, RMX asks the owner of a domain if he has consented to
allowing a particular MTA to send messages with envelope "from"
claiming to be from that domain.

  No third-party domain is involved.

>> But a rogue spammer who owns an MTA is free to list whatever other
>> domain names it wants in the RMX.  So nasty-spammer.com is free to
>> have an RMX entry for aol.com.

  This is a gross (and I can only assume intentional) misunderstanding
of the proposal.

  When an MTA receives a connection from a spammer, claiming to be
from 'aol.com', RMX queries the domain 'aol.com' about it's consent
relationship with the originating MTA.  RMX doesn't query the spammers
domain.

  What part of the document led you to believe that the domain of the
originating MTA would ever involved in RMX, unless the envelope 'from'
matched that domain?

>> And, by the way, we have not achieved much, even if we make all the
>> From fields be accurate.  We still get spam.

  No one has ever disagreed with this.  Many people have explicitely
agreed.  Can you please stop repeating it, like it's some kind of
news?

> As to my intention, it's very simple:  I'd like the group to put forward
> proposals that are likely to be productive, rather than transient and
> wasteful.

  No one has ever disagreed with that, either.  Can you please stop
wasting everyones time by repeating the same tired objections?

> I do apologize for this concern over pragmatics and I especially
> apologize for employing some years of experience in these matters.  We
> are all stuck with our own baggage...

  Ah, appeal to authority.  The best kind of defence.

  "As a published nuclear physicist, I find RMX easy to understand,
lightweight, and less filling than other proposals.  I believe that
every electron could benefit from RMX."

  Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg