Hiya, On 01/07/2024 03:31, Joel Halpern wrote:
[External Email] This email originated outside of Trinity College Dublin. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.For me, the reason I have read a lot of the notes similarly to the way John did is in part the way the conversation started. If it ha started with "hey, I see that we don't have IPv6 support for our email now. When did that stop and why?" Anc then waited for staffto have a chance to answer, that would have been understandable.
That may be correct. OTOH, wouldn't it have been obviously better had the starting point been "hey, we're having problems finding ways to get someone to send mail over IPv6"?
But the thread started with "staff did something wrong". (To be clear Stephen, I think your email was sufficient far down-thread that I have no perception of your attitude, and would likely be wrong if I guessed.)
To try be clear(er):-), I see two issues here that I think require better justification: - issues with finding someone to send over IPv6 should've been communicated to the community as it's a no-brainer that that's a thing that will cause controversy - I don't see that the IETF need to be part of the herd and only use "major" email service providers, who do have a history of not paying any attention to tiny customers such as the IETF (as you yourself pointed out) And of course, characterising criticisms related to the above as if all criticisms imply someone is incompetent don't help. It is entirely easy to make mistakes, as we all do. Admitting those, when they've happened, and dealing with that is... preferable. Cheers, S,
Yours, Joel On 6/30/2024 10:03 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:John, On 01/07/2024 02:25, John R Levine wrote:I have to say that the implication that the people running the IETF's mailsystem are incompetent fools is getting a little old.I read almost but not all of the messages in these threads. In none of that did I make any such accusation. I also didn't see such things stated by others. (But if they did, then do call those out specifically.) Tarring all criticism that way is basically a distraction. I guess that's based on some kind of knee-jerk reaction due to frustration, but I'd encourage you to re-read what was actually written and perhaps answer that instead. Thanks, S.
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xE4D8E9F997A833DD.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
