Subject: [ietf-dkim] let's screw up a good thing

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:54:31 -0700

I just don't get it. It seems to me that people who are advocating 
changing the spec are
doing it in a complete vacuum of the wide deployment out there. Is DKIM 
broken?
Manifestly not even a little which is quite remarkable.

Every single suggestion has been debated in the past, and every 
suggestion if adopted
would cause a wave of incompatibility problems. Any supposed 
"simplification" of
the spec would be radically outweighed by dealing with the complexity of 
those
incompatibilities. So "simplification" is not a valid argument.

So what is the real motivation here?  Is the real intent to cripple 
further deployment?
Or maybe people don't have enough to do with their day jobs? Or maybe 
the thrill
of making dev managers lives suck is just irresistible?

If not, what?

       Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: [email-masked] (Wietse Venema)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 19:58:33 -0400 (EDT)

Michael Thomas:
> changing the spec are doing it in a complete vacuum of the wide
> deployment out there. Is DKIM broken? Manifestly not even a little
> which is quite remarkable.
>
> suggestion if adopted would cause a wave of incompatibility
> problems. Any supposed "simplification" of the spec would be
> radically outweighed by dealing with the complexity of those
> further deployment? Or maybe people don't have enough to do with
> their day jobs? Or maybe the thrill of making dev managers lives
> suck is just irresistible?
>
> If not, what?

This is not a discussion. This is an accusation. I will not play
your game, and I can only hope that others won't either.

	Wietse

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 08:00:21 -0400

> your game, and I can only hope that others won't either.

I am offended too with you continued idiotic proposals to destabilized 
a RFC protocol and the WG make people take sides, and quite frankly, 
you are the only one  who has cursed people out, telling people to 
SHUT THE F%^K UP. Don't be posing like you are anything close to being 
civilized - you are far from it.

Mr. Thomas has all the right to express his views and discomfort with 
whats going on.

As far as I am concern, you are a one principle reasons why POLICY was 
ruined and now its going to happen to the BASE protocol.

How do you like those apples?

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com

---

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 23:21:14 +0530

> a RFC protocol and the WG make people take sides, and quite frankly,

Only two sides .. mainstream + operationally relevant, and crackpot.

cheers
srs

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 11:58:06 -0700

> Only two sides .. mainstream + operationally relevant, and crackpot.

Folks,

If you believe someone is posting something silly or an ad hominem attack, 
please please PLEASE don't respond.

We've had entirely too many of these exchanges and the only way they ever end is 
either a blow up or people simply stopping posting responses (or both).  So 
let's skip the disruptive part and jump to the quiet end:  don't respond!

d/

ps.  Of course, if wouldn't hurt for our chairs to start invoking RFC 3943 and 
suspending posting privileges for mailing list offenders.  But the rest of us 
can help by refraining from feeding trolls.

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 15:10:29 -0400

> Only two sides .. mainstream + operationally relevant, and crackpot.

DKIM has suffered tremendously with this unfortunately mindset.  It is 
the reason it isn't as MAINSTREAM as you may wish it to be, and even 
if you believe it is, without a doubt overwhelmingly ignored.

-
Sincerely

Hector Santos

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 15:24:53 -0400

Dave,

You are one of the worst engineers I have ever encountered. One of 
your long time colleagues said it first to me - I quote:

     "nearly ever a job done by Dave needed to get redone,
      fixed or abandoned."

DKIM sad state of affairs is a yet another testament of this.

That said, even though it was two others who started the personal 
attacks, I will do you a favor and unsubscribe. I have more important 
things to do than further worst time in this lopsided silly group that 
basically has destroyed the promise of DKIM with little hope of 
gaining across the board adoption in all market places - not with you 
in charge.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos