On 4/20/2014 2:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On April 20, 2014 2:18:08 PM EDT, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Requiring clear statements about the need is not 'defensive'; it
is merely being professional and responsible.
That's one theory. Considering the current state of play in which
DMARC isn't even being submitted to the IETF, the alternative theory
that the developers of DMARC were not interested in anything other
than a rubber stamp approval from the IETF seems to me to be much
more consistent with the available information.
I think I'm done with this argument.
Yes, it's always good to end with an attack on other people's integrity.
So much more comforting than dealing with the substance of the issue.
Definitely better to dismiss that out of hand.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net