Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 12/14/20 8:12 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 12/12/2020 10:57 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> As a developer for 40 years, I can safely say that reject or 
>> discardable or whatever it was in ssp are all abundantly clear and 
>> that nobody writing a filter would make the error that you keep 
>> insisting that we would.
>
> An appeal to authority?  In this group?  Really?
>
> So that means that my citing 50 years of writing this kind of 
> networking standard and seeing exactly the kinds of misinterpretation 
> I'm expressing concern about carries more sway than your own 
> experience (which I suspect is a lot less than 40 years of writing 
> specifications for the public Internet, as to writing them for more 
> constrained environments.)
>
> And the above is mostly meant to serve as a demonstration of just how 
> inappropriate an appeal to authority is, here.
>

Yes. I and developers like me are the target audience, not you. When we 
tell you it's not a problem, you should listen to us rather than badger 
us and tell us you know better. You have wasted years litigating a 
non-problem, and continue to litigate conversational speech as if it 
were some gigantic problem that will never be solved unless the world 
over uses some never quite precise enough language. p=reject is 
completely clear what its meaning and intent are. This is a waste of 
time, and a major symptom of why IETF is considered sclerotic and to be 
avoided if possible.

I started this thread about p=quarantine, not p=reject as the subject 
makes abundantly clear. If you want to relitigate p=reject, kindly 
create your own thread so I can more easily ignore it, and the chairs 
can rule as out of scope because there is no ticket.

Mike