IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Enough DMARC whinging

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 06 May 2014 06:02 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB141A072A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 23:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 7XCeEQ1J_Dek for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 23:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EEC01A0727 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 23:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hi2so305510wib.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 May 2014 23:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=v2N25Z4LIgWGnidkydU4C8wRkuqiNNm17qoPpiptfrQ=; b=MKzZpGjq9029NYeU3R55L8hcejc2nkqNQWG4x0fM7rDUYqatfN/9CZBO3ndn1S7cxD E6cfzaro7KEFtj+jaFe/VRXljq4lqCHaZI9mdh6gEeiuFTEsi76jNBBc3AoNoNnb/qVy iKgUNyiKr4fDApX8HBuVSyxJJF5ZdFPC3yKVLB5YF8NFk/TS7/EU5748stOtJlI7nFOs R8pC4OpE+Bib6yMxaf9akC50ioxXQASyOaVU02BMQ0ugKOsqI81cVuSfYQxp2e84EM3y z/yTy1Va9OlteLy0qZQSgh9Z3IFj9UPoF1iLsaW5cbMgORbQ7mTVlmuZR6cBdDxizx0r kEbQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.77.225 with SMTP id v1mr755143wiw.5.1399356115043; Mon, 05 May 2014 23:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.210.194 with HTTP; Mon, 5 May 2014 23:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140505201100.GA4634@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <CAMm+Lwh0Sc2wtvjEAjOMi4emDzyF4JWmmzYr5QEFcmyoKtkTAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwikJhO5R6UqWx8qUswMptgTw_wF6E6_9Ok=SRYTBChYgA@mail.gmail.com> <536113B1.5070309@bbiw.net> <CAMm+LwiXoW3p5uCmML4kAWXnbrrAnSCK9x5U2qeHJdVgR2r_Gg@mail.gmail.com> <E3A7C677B18263C8DF6DD316@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5362943D.2020907@bluepopcorn.net> <536295E5.3080502@dcrocker.net> <5362B4C6.10904@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwb_UJrjViZwxrSC=y4y8geY8-N0QOHMeBski3dEuBqB6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYPzfjPA6qBN=SXaJFvtYZcumRnZ5tCSNHbdw1r_hyG-w@mail.gmail.com> <20140505201100.GA4634@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 23:01:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZQYg05-xzYarfiouc3Zrf4R-UeStKpX-3tq-pDVWH_PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Enough DMARC whinging
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c824626d23f04f8b4fcde"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8naiZ-IKEJ1bMEKm6pZmfe6vguA
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 06:02:01 -0000

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>wrote:

> While that is true (and is indeed evidence that there's not a
> "protocol extension" here), there are several of us who regard that
> particular decision as a bug, not a feature.  It seems a bizarre way
> to defend the approach.
>

I wasn't defending the approach, actually.  I was merely responding to an
incorrect claim about how it was done so far.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email