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 <m...@mtcc.com
<mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote:
On 12/5/20 3:10 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <dd59f2f3-b17e-6c2b-f756-7dcad2702...@mtcc.com
<mailto:dd59f2f3-b17e-6c2b-f756-7dcad2702...@mtcc.com>> 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
dmarc@ietf.org <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
