On Tue, 10 May 2011 00:02:36 +0100, Barry Leiba
wrote:
> That was quick. I believe we already have enough objections to say
> that we do NOT have rough consensus for deprecating l= at this time.
> I'll close the issue in the tracker (issue #26), and we will leave it
> as it is.
>
> Of course,
On May 9, 2011, at 5:14 PM, John Levine wrote:
> I think it was a mistake to include l= in the first place, but I
> find Murray's arguments against taking it out now persuasive.
+1
> I would also really like to have a better idea of how people are
> using it, notably, for all those messages whe
On May 9, 2011, at 5:14 PM, John Levine wrote:
> I think it was a mistake to include l= in the first place, but I
> find Murray's arguments against taking it out now persuasive.
Agreed (which is a -1 to removal.)
> I would also really like to have a better idea of how people are
> using it, nota
I think it was a mistake to include l= in the first place, but I
find Murray's arguments against taking it out now persuasive.
I would also really like to have a better idea of how people are
using it, notably, for all those messages where l= doesn't cover
the whole body, what's in the naked part.
Barry Leiba wrote:
>> So I'll ask it this way, starting a new thread for it:
>> I determine from discussion that there's enough support for
>> deprecating "l=" to qualify as rough consensus *if* there's not much
>> objection to it. �It's the objection we need to gauge. �Please post to
>> this threa
I object.
Barry Leiba wrote:
>> I'd like to request that we specifically test for consensus on
>> deprecating "l=" through the usual +1/-1 approach. No miring, just a
>> vote.
>
> Semantics first: we don't "vote" here.
>
> OK, that taken care of, it's a fair request, because there's been a
> lot
> So I'll ask it this way, starting a new thread for it:
> I determine from discussion that there's enough support for
> deprecating "l=" to qualify as rough consensus *if* there's not much
> objection to it. It's the objection we need to gauge. Please post to
> this thread if you object to depre
On 05/09/2011 02:28 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Semantics first: we don't "vote" here.
>
> OK, that taken care of, it's a fair request, because there's been a
> lot of discussion about it. We certainly have a good base of support
> for deprecating "l=".
>
> So I'll ask it this way, starting a new thr
On 05/09/2011 02:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> - the PS-DS promotion "rules" say we should cut stuff that's not actually in
> use, but this is;
> - we therefore don't have any data to conclude that there isn't anyone out
> there that finds it exceptionally useful despite the dangers
>
> - the PS-DS promotion "rules" say we should cut stuff that's not actually in
> use, but this is;
>
> - we therefore don't have any data to conclude that there isn't anyone out
> there that finds it exceptionally useful despite the dangers
oops. he's right. it /is/ in use and we have no basis
c: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
>> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
>>
>> So I'll ask it this way, starting a new thread for it:
>> I determine from discussion that there's enough support for
>> deprecating "l=" to qualify a
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:29 PM
> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider dep
> I'd like to request that we specifically test for consensus on
> deprecating "l=" through the usual +1/-1 approach. No miring, just a
> vote.
Semantics first: we don't "vote" here.
OK, that taken care of, it's a fair request, because there's been a
lot of discussion about it. We certainly have
13 matches
Mail list logo
