Re: [dmarc-ietf] Decorum on the DMARC WG list and BCP 94

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 07 January 2021 05:05 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDECF3A0127; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:05:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CfrQuge-I_v1; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x333.google.com (mail-ot1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::333]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8280A3A0163; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x333.google.com with SMTP id i6so5259108otr.2; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 21:05:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZjBtm2fHPerFAa45k5igLyGxy8JN6b/M3ACRAZRjI9k=; b=BOvOtYwad7IckpT9NmAEPJJPUINcKPiVA7NpnM/Y+KLVdyUUP7uLjqY3bYo1o+sN60 kOKbMky+R1DAL9WcIPqrYRS9kdybCm2qTaCZPk/0bS4FJQGUTvt6TS6z6ohJKLEui2h7 w0SlArl/Yfigw/10PWhSxZXi7sWUOvaICDjUfmQjPOsw1W1cdlstuxnAnqXIPs7yujah t9Q8lgvF9QtJmtnT7v6imT1+Cs6xFMa9VQW+E5rYGszsvoT1D6At3g+pNilxis7dqqGI 00zY/bGxFK5B/rtfLhPKUFj7THVHrU0LLfHnJmLDBYgfRRwY2G8oDkaUbZdLsU0NSXLO tnQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZjBtm2fHPerFAa45k5igLyGxy8JN6b/M3ACRAZRjI9k=; b=XHZ0nbA1lZ3FJ9MliHYrcAezMbfN34YNQumqrXW/qhyZhwLPVR5x5K7oy7OpXLZRYz D8TlIR6T1sCpDa39nQ/alXj+MHYBziV/bEiNINF8pGCw3KdFJAxGPMnKUJ54W7fqrney MSzaCyvtIbC/pWMo8aEmXlGhwJyIz0DGrY6xP6BUJL9AhFt8ilKFDij5F7ltI20P1h11 pyoqYrAej1izhKeDb6D6zlOtVyXmp4CEj5G9zfwPVuZEegJncLUcnA0PyrAhJDgK66qj MqSU4354QLIWToxVgzU34CK3+lZwKMKoXyOL/Q3Q1aKmVF7n6aQqFBA5Oor5Fyqjn1h1 UiAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335qhrwKvx0jPtKbdfbYLJcxGlU3u4LNqcJinUzKpdlyfsyNt1F fDd9+4cqSyVZArBsedHmEBl3EJIkwhbv1WT7tz4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz526VpD7JjjojK3CgHGJJkHS/y87x9CqoHactY6VyA3JEewYbUvVIY9VunWZQZ5nG5cd712j37sny2YGtHbFM=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3ef6:: with SMTP id b109mr5620341otc.288.1609995940815; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 21:05:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOZAAfPW6Oki-4Ebgk9yS1H-r19PBTqE8nDMTFjUKY38JKgrfQ@mail.gmail.com> <acf32e64-f1fa-25df-b677-2e279ffeb2cc@gmail.com> <CADyWQ+HQk2+o+YweayH5t3GHua79zUBB1=1VFr6XXLgPt6kO0g@mail.gmail.com> <d8dd3487-48b7-bd35-90fb-60c1d62eb39f@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d8dd3487-48b7-bd35-90fb-60c1d62eb39f@gmail.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 00:05:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+GCPX8jCQJmnGNgCX1mtNScyOj30TmR5C5J9bopWpiHxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Cc: Seth Blank <seth=40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, ART ADs <art-ads@ietf.org>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000246e3005b8486464"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/88obQj_Vmr1uuQrPfGbAnVZyyJ8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Decorum on the DMARC WG list and BCP 94
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 05:05:47 -0000

Dave

I agree.  But it seems one person's civil discourse is another person's
abuse.

Perhaps we can start from the position that nobody is attempting to insult
or abuse one another.
I don't believe anyone here consciously wants to be abusive to anyone else.
I have been accused of being an optimist.

tim


On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:52 PM Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/6/2021 8:47 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> You should have a pretty good idea based on these arguments over the past
> few months to have a sense of how responses will be received. Take a step
> back and take a second read.
>
> This goes for all. Folks have very specific views of how they think mail
> should work
>
>
> Tim,
>
> This has nothing to do with differences in opinion.  It has to do with his
> persistent inability to conduct civil discourse in the face of disagreement.
>
> Disagreement is fine.  Abuse is not.
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crockerdcrocker@gmail.com
> 408.329.0791
>
> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
> American Red Crossdave.crocker2@redcross.org
>
>