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

Michael Thomas <> Thu, 07 January 2021 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCA53A11D0 for <>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:47:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yAtqc3O0Aexm for <>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:47:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FCBC3A11C4 for <>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:47:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i5so5104117pgo.1 for <>; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 06:47:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=rWYr24e3hALX9+zK0qLMFCrwhyf8Yl217XaDQrcTxck=; b=U+nMR/oCxJ1YFxdhT+bBjjuvt0+36yrdRawiDwW3KZ12A4ywYS13AzAJlRuyVmAOgb BnpLkXJCU972Cl6EKMS6T7RA4YoaABv+EaldRmG7bd5O2vPxtlWVuTR0fUOpT39XR7OD h4nhWgSpQIdtY9IEoReJwTdK8B91zaRD9y/6f51TMqC3REhmr7Y7KKCENGwDb4UwuEHU XL7B+MpVXdVD+tGBa0fdb/Kqc3LKM78UTxWEi5crWu0Kh4+uwwUGGcectD3FXKx+GQcJ djN2Ho9xEGm6CH1m0t4AgVtdxo44NYSOVF2sbJT34nU4yaoG09XNB0YlyISwNAMjbSLr EsWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=rWYr24e3hALX9+zK0qLMFCrwhyf8Yl217XaDQrcTxck=; b=IqPiaHHdQxU6WShd7dBXTe395u7u8X8LdzWn+daetgosNBq93o5eS4czRZWy4qErAe EE/PdABA/ieGp+5PfNavmUknf78UjS+t6VOhDSJ16Ee2ZJBcIHEJp3+OwQKMEUzNlzft VMu3IEwAHnK2KnFZHP58MQPM83Muzod6eyawhl3hwMNKOaInymEm1xRGSImrGrQ+nPLW bxAAT8iB00ICRQt23UbxK/D72yldH8tFPd0ecnhCldd+Xbqa1sXXw+sXr1w5hOOVstt1 v5n64r/pqJ27WsTiNr7MIEwhuRcCYOCXU1p/89oZPbj/D32iDaJ3h3qgO66qaWLPkfuC KR9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Tt769DmNJzUexsxnkiKylcBxcYh9LB6uNptrdjTgdMJKkVIeK On4neYQmGvL3bW+Pi9+OhKKbNmyhfU4CKbQ0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzA/E0ONj3XI2fE3sAjugRvG0I2Ipc+IvATmKY7a+yjlUDzPW76jkq5B5AoL/nJ1YDSqWOWtw==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:434c:: with SMTP id k12mr2130843pgq.373.1610030858231; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 06:47:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id j17sm5872248pfh.183.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jan 2021 06:47:37 -0800 (PST)
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:47:36 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Decorum on the DMARC WG list and BCP 94
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 14:47:41 -0000

PS: what brought this all up was me pointing to a report which 
contradicted his claim, and he nastily snarled about whether I had read 
it. he constantly gets away with that kind of shit and never suffers any 
consequences. never. yes, i've been told he's been tut-tut'd in private, 
but it never changes his behavior. get rid of him if you want to make 
progress. he's poison, and i'm not the only one who feels that way.


On 1/7/21 6:38 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Supporting what Tim said, and expanding a bit (and, yes, it's general,
> not specific): If we all do our best to stick to the technical issues
> and to keep our tone neutral, then it's easier for the chairs to
> respond appropriately to cases of inability to conduct civil
> discourse, and to target that response appropriately.  Best efforts to
> understand each other, to respond to the points, and to avoid
> implications that anyone's concerns are trivial will make it possible
> for the chairs to manage the discussion and to take appropriate action
> when they have to.  If you think something's been hashed out enough
> and that further discussion along the same line isn't useful, don't
> say that publicly: let the chairs know what you think, and let them
> handle it from there.
> Barry
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:52 PM Dave Crocker <> 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 Crocker
>> 408.329.0791
>> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
>> American Red Cross
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list