oh, shit. that was not intended to be public. apologies to all. please
disregard.
Mike
On 1/7/21 6:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 1/7/2021 6:47 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
PS: what brought this all up was me pointing to a report which
contradicted his claim,
It didn't.
and he nastily snarled
On 1/7/2021 6:47 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
PS: what brought this all up was me pointing to a report which
contradicted his claim,
It didn't.
and he nastily snarled about whether I had read it.
There is a pleasant way to snarl?
In any event, please document specifics, that qualify as 'snar
PS: what brought this all up was me pointing to a report which
contradicted his claim, and he nastily snarled about whether I had read
it. he constantly gets away with that kind of shit and never suffers any
consequences. never. yes, i've been told he's been tut-tut'd in private,
but it never c
Supporting what Tim said, and expanding a bit (and, yes, it's general,
not specific): If we all do our best to stick to the technical issues
and to keep our tone neutral, then it's easier for the chairs to
respond appropriately to cases of inability to conduct civil
discourse, and to target that re
Dave
I agree. But it seems one person's civil discourse is another person's
abuse.
Perhaps we can start from the position that nobody is attempting to insult
or abuse one another.
I don't believe anyone here consciously wants to be abusive to anyone else.
I have been accused of being an optimist
On 1/6/2021 8:47 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
You should have a pretty good idea based on these arguments over the
past few months to have a sense of how responses will be received.
Take a step back and take a second read.
This goes for all. Folks have very specific views of how they think
mail sh
Dave
You should have a pretty good idea based on these arguments over the past
few months to have a sense of how responses will be received. Take a step
back and take a second read.
This goes for all. Folks have very specific views of how they think mail
should work in regards to DMARC/DKIM/SPF/A
On 1/6/21 4:21 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
Working Group colleagues,
Discussion on this list is increasingly out of scope and process,
unproductive, and antagonistic. This behavior undermines the chartered
work of this group and will not be tolerated. We expect and require
more civil discourse fr
On 1/6/2021 4:21 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
and is not likely to escalate tensions.
Seth,
Sorry, but please provide guidelines for how anyone is supposed to
evaluate their draft posting, in that regard?
And please do it with respect to the current list rather than in
abstract and generic terms
All
If you feel a need to be heard, that is also what the chairs are here for.
thanks
tim
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 7:21 PM Seth Blank wrote:
> Working Group colleagues,
>
> Discussion on this list is increasingly out of scope and process,
> unproductive, and antagonistic. This behavior undermin
Working Group colleagues,
Discussion on this list is increasingly out of scope and process,
unproductive, and antagonistic. This behavior undermines the chartered work
of this group and will not be tolerated. We expect and require more civil
discourse from our participants, and remind everyone tha
11 matches
Mail list logo
