Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 12/5/20 3:49 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Michael
>
> I don't see john's comments as ad hominem.  He's describing how his 
> mail system interprets mail flow.
>
> But I do think a lot of this discussion is getting into very 
> esoteric cases.
> I'd suggest trying to put your thoughts into a draft we can sit and 
> chew on.

Wow, you don't see the last line as questioning my intelligence? The two 
of them have been tag teaming me to get me thrown off of here since I 
returned just like they did on the DKIM list which I finally left 
because it wasn't worth their nastiness. I'll probably do the same here 
since the chairs seem to not care about their continuing hostility, but 
I will always have the fact that myself and two others created and wrote 
DKIM well before IETF came into the picture and the politics and credit 
seeking personalities it brings.

Mike


>
> Tim
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 6:16 PM Michael Thomas <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 12/5/20 3:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
>     > In article <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> you write:
>     >> If ARC is advocating for a bypass of p=reject that introduces a new
>     >> state. If my policy is reject, I want you to reject the mail.
>     If I want
>     >> you to reject the mail unless you think it has come from an
>     acceptable
>     >> place with receipts, then you need a new policy tag like
>     >> reject-except-valid-arc.
>     > Other people will have to speak for themselves but on my system
>     >
>     > a) I don't believe you.
>     >
>     > 2) I don't care.
>     >
>     > I think you will find this reaction pretty common.
>     >
>     > I see lots of mail going through my system like the stuff I
>     described
>     > for the town clerk. It is obvious who it is intended for, the
>     only way
>     > to deliver it to that recipient is to forward it, and if the DMARC
>     > policy says not to do that, the policy is wrong. I don't even
>     need ARC
>     > for that, although ARC can be useful for mail that takes indirect
>     > routes for the mailing lists they subscribe to.
>     >
>     > You can say, no I am smarter than those guys and I REALLY REALLY
>     mean
>     > it, but see 2) above.
>     >
>
>     Can you keep your contempt for me off this list? This is not even
>     responsive to what I wrote, and is nothing more than an ad hominem.
>
>     And  your anecdotal evidence drawn from a tiny system is very suspect.
>
>     Mike
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     dmarc mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>
>