I totally agree that this pointless repetition is...pointless. Barry and I have asked folks to stop that kind of thing a number of times with no real success. (As demonstrated by the last few days messages.)
Perhaps this time people will be more responsible, we'll see. I also think that the fewer people that take the bait, the quicker these threads peter out. So each person who decides not to hit "send" quite so readily is helping. Stephen. On 14/09/10 20:35, J.D. Falk wrote: > ...but not for the reasons the anti-ADSP folks keep bringing up. > > DKIM is failing because every discussion about actually /using/ DKIM > inevitably gets stuck in the same old argument about ADSP. Doesn't even > matter what the argument is about anymore; it stops all forward progress > every time. And we keep letting it happen -- actively participating, even, > including me. > > Continuing to argue these same points over and over is disrespectful of our > colleagues both on and off this list, and of the IETF process. > > So I'm going to stop, and I beg you all to join me. > > Stop arguing, and start writing drafts. Let us discuss the drafts instead of > attacking each others' intractable positions for the Nth time. If you think > ADSP will bring about the end of all human communication, WRITE A DRAFT > EXPLAINING WHY. If you think something else, write that instead. > > Yes, I know it requires more effort, but what we've been doing so far clearly > isn't working. > > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
