The best use you could make of your time would be to let this absurd argument drop.
> On Apr 18, 2017, at 11:24 AM, Ryan Sleevi <sle...@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM, philliph--- via Public <public@cabforum.org > <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> wrote: > 'Votes not submitted to the Public Mail...’ > > If we are going to be hyper pedantic about this, nobody disputes that the > vote was submitted to the Public Mail list. It is therefore a valid vote. > > Yes, multiple people do. Because you're ignoring both the surrounding > paragraph and the Bylaws. > > Would you like me to provide you a full analysis about how this approach is > factually incorrect? > > If we are to be hyper pedantic, let us consider the precise meaning of RFC > 5821, section 3.3 in which the process of submitting a message is described. > > Did Microsoft execute a MAIL command? > Did Microsoft execute a RCPT command? > Did Microsoft execute a DATA command? > > The answer to these is yes and thus Microsoft completed all the necessary > steps for submission of the vote. The failure to forward the vote to the list > subscribers was due entirely to the configuration of the mail system, a > factor over which Microsoft had not control. > > Thus, according to the bylaws, the vote is valid and shall be counted. > > This is perhaps the most useful new argument, but fails to address any of the > broader concerns. > > To make best use of my time, can you clarify: Have you read the entire Bylaws > before making this argument? Have you read the concerns to date? Would it be > useful for your further discussion to point out the many ways in which your > position is at conflict with them? >
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
