Re: HTML for email

Keith Moore <> Tue, 02 March 2021 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAEC33A0C49 for <>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 10:36:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=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 os1cSePhKRrV for <>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 10:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FC433A0C46 for <>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 10:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42ADC5C009F for <>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:36:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 02 Mar 2021 13:36:21 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=HksWhy IGTI5ds31qWIDA16kDbTl6xEnmToPSrFuboF0=; b=W6ANc/HRj7PwoOqGUs6d/1 lhkVYhO4lHYhw6NgLQfz1ujyqptQZpsQ+aobJ44fG68k4Fr/iGnSfQ8CwfrFHfDx Ub6O5GBNnkWrBvqVCfK4FdhgrfjFuK8gsB/XfYBXl2IgU1ilXPVzKE7Rtdo+wABE 9mW5OgDUOIAEz8GHpFXNiyS38JaME0H42q9HK3BrEoLpZjzod9uLyp1KNDhJryUa ZK/pFEWq/AA4Z9DlF6hDqx9W72GMWDs+e+dvSejqiykGkYBotiJcKptBtI2tqd2C rrEot8wpSC6kasOBfJub5NFhtJZif+/uzWW5Pu7XyvG6j7YjXk22Q8IUtPQfihhA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:pIU-YOKAxontlxmRltG_ygq9cBUU5SxHYeFeRyCjs96Dbj2e8Ol_qQ> <xme:pIU-YGIInhVHSQkiOnGczUFrdAes-zDp8l1_oO1IQ_ywEZGc4r-Btlj6GH6TzN6Bs ACuj2IyeuLD1w>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledruddttddguddtlecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtd erredtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeetgfejieevue ffgeekteeitdeugeekgeekgfduieduueefgfettddvgefhgfeiudenucffohhmrghinhep hhhtthhpthhlshdrshhonecukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedtrdduheenucevlhhush htvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:pIU-YOv1id1F1DRBkPWM552Y0ZKI7zwu6Jhl4Inui4xqXrBwbJu0jA> <xmx:pIU-YDZDNgqsoHLXUVrQEvn1Ce5V-WOYvHvbGK3IS5nS6uYLl5mcWQ> <xmx:pIU-YFbmiB-wQe9FpNzoPk4JiBk-PjsPqSNw-zy8qJc-6DYW--UXWw> <xmx:pYU-YForAINyQr-5y-QCaDzIUGTsudD_fRfXfD7dIm2heZlsDmYwrQ>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A77E924005B for <>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:36:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: HTML for email
References: <20210227190200.06ED46F10439@ary.qy> <4064.1614454347@localhost> <s1f0vo$ejp$> <> <> <> <> <20210301232237.GI30153@localhost> <> <> <> <> <085e01d70f8b$98c754f0$ca55fed0$> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:36:18 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------EFF6C245443A419F63801E97"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 18:36:26 -0000

On 3/2/21 1:28 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> What Google needed for their immediate commercial needs was a simple 
> archive technology that zips up a few Web page components delivered 
> over HTTP/TLS. So they wrote a very narrow spec that only addressed 
> their use case and then came to IETF to get it blessed as a niche 
> solution. But it is a solution that was designed with absolutely no 
> thought to the wider problem. They didn't want to consider the wider 
> problem at all.

That kind of tension between different ideas of how to scope an effort 
always exists.   I agree that IETF often scopes its WGs too narrowly, 
sometimes in a deliberate effort to create an artificial sense of 
consensus.   And by doing so, it often fails to resolve tussles that 
could have probably been resolved.   But sometimes you simply can't get 
enough of the different concerns to cooperate to address a common 
problem.   And you can fail by scoping an effort too widely at least as 
easily as you can fail by scoping an effort too narrowly.   It's a 
judgment call, and sometimes those judgments will be better than others.