Barry, Please excuse any expressed anger.
This is not the first time. The "Accidental Offline Post In Public On
Purpose" was intentional posted because he has done it before and it
will serves him no purpose to write his defamation of my character in
private. He got his defaming points out in publics. He has used the
tactic of creating chaos to get discussions killed and people shamed
as lacking credentials. He has done this many times and not just
with me.
As an Internet Hosting implementator, I have been long participated in
IETF related work and I have been acknowledged by many of the IETF
work. I have supported most of the proposals if not all the main ones
for SMTP.
Levine and I got off the wrong foot when he started the IRTF "LMAP
Group" that just started SPF. I presented my 2003-2005 two years
work with CBV call back verification and he kicked me out of the
group. He called my customers stupid, rejects all my email and its
been sour ever since, only this time, I am seriously contemplating a
defamation lawsuit.
Since he "hijacked" and I will say it strongly, SSP, with a crippled
ADSP with the main purpose to remove all 3rd party talk, we, the DKIM
and DMARC WG has been in this non-resolution bind for the last 17
years leaving loopholes in the DKIM policy model called DMARC. We
need to admit this truth because this interference to prevent TPA
concepts has stopped completing this project. He should of never been
giving editorship or gatekeeper of ADSP and now DMARCbis because
nothing will get accomplished towards DKIM Policy issues and DMARC
risk calling the same hole ADSP did.
Unfortunately, he is repeating it again with DMARCbis. He sees
interest in author/signer protocols and he immediately jumps in to
kill it, like he has done in the past, by defaming people, telling
people not to respond, telling people we are trolls and that we scare
people away.
What should I do now? He did this for nearly 20 years and I don't
like it.
I am not going to go away again like I did in 2012 when all the stress
was not good for my health and I was forced to take a long 6-8 years
health sabbatical. I stayed away from here as much as I could,
watching a promising system get pushed aside for business conflicts --
Reputation services. Remember Levine's Domain Assurance Council using
VBR?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Assurance_Council
I am not making this up. This was the start of all the resistance to
DKIM Policy. He took over ADSP but didn't support it.
I don't explain why. Maybe he felt DKIM POLICY would had controlled
the market of resigners and this is why he had Section 5.3, Item 10
added to the functional specs - don't try to INPURGN on 3rd party
services -- local policy. Hard to argue. It was hitting a promising
framework in the knees with a hammer!!
Barry, lets just get this finished, a document that endorses DKIM
POLICY add-on methods. With the support of the IETF without the long
time interference will go a long way to completing this. The industry
has been damaged with Levine's rewrite hack/taboo. Who does that and
is also the editor of DMARCbis? Is it for it or against it? It seems
illogical. Conflict of Interest. Please lets try to fix it.
Can there ever be proposed text to suggest a smooth transition to
DMARCbis endorsing 3rd party authorization exploration and solutions?
Maybe when it is endorsed we can get the enterprises to at least do
verification, even if they can use it themselves for outbound mail.
--
HLS
On 4/24/2023 4:49 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Ok, everyone, let’s take a rest here.
First: John’s message was not nice. We can all agree on that. So…
(1) John, please don’t send messages like that, even off list. You
can clearly see why that’s good advice.
(2) Everyone other than John, please just accept John’s word — I do
— that sending it to the list was accidental, and that he did not
mean to publicly disparage or embarrass anyone. What happened is
regrettable. Let’s be bigger than the error and get past it. Thanks.
Second: this whole thread is well beyond the scope of what the
working group is chartered to do. I’ve let these sorts of
discussions go because I hoped they might lead us in a useful
direction. It’s become very clear that they will not, and that they
are just distractions that prevent us from resolving the issues at
hand and finishing the chartered work.
So…
(1) Please stop this and related threads, and please avoid
discussions that are not in direct resolution of open issues.
(2) Be aware that the chairs will be getting aggressive about
shutting down out-of-scope discussions quickly. I will put the
mailing list on moderation if necessary, which would mean that every
post would need approval before it’s posted to the list. I’d rather
not spend my time that way; please don’t make it necessary.
Barry, as chair
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
--
Hector Santos,
https://santronics.com
https://winserver.com
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
