On 10/27/2014 4:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > No. I mean that a badly motivated web site can pretend to offer safe material > using this but actually offer objectionable material (for whatever definition > of safe or objectionable you care to adopt). Brian, That's a pretty surprising and quite disturbing criterion. Apply it consistently and we get no standards at all. Ever. Any site can choose to be deceptive. For example, when a message is relayed to a site and it accepts it, we can't be sure it won't choose to mis-route it. The purpose of the safe mechanism is to provide a standard way that a user can state a basic desire to a server. It is not the purpose of the mechanism to guarantee that the server will behave honorably. 1. The mechanism already has plenty of field experience demonstrating basic utility. 2. The proposed mechanism opts for simplicity. More complexity would actually increase the likelihood that a user's expectation's are not matched. Criticisms of the proposal are tending to miss the established experience, or to propose entirely different designs that have no basis from that experience, or to raise concerns that are frankly outside the proper scope of the specification. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net