> We seem to agree that discard means "throw away". Evidently. But I do have the advantage of knowing what I meant when I wrote the section we're arguing about.
> Now I'm really getting confused John. On the one hand you argue that > there are hordes of panting implementers anxiously awaiting the > opportunity to publish borked (a technical term) ADSP records (compared > to their mailing practices) thus creating a situation where their very > important mail will be discarded by any receiver that follows the > instructions of those implementers. (If the mail was not important then > there would not be many - if any - complaints to receivers and this > discussion would be moot.) That's why, as I have consistently argued since day 1, the correct thing for implementers to do is to ignore ADSP completely, since there is nothing you can do with it that will produce better results than ignoring it. > So ADSP is a broken spam filter? Why would you present yourself as the > co-author of a broken spam filter? As I think I made pretty clear at the time, I crowbared my way into the ADSP effort to try to minimize the damage. If it were up to me, we would have abandoned the effort without producing any RFC at all, but there were too many people who believed (and apparently some who still believe) that it's a magic bullet against something. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
