> On 2 Nov 2016, at 20:18, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2 Nov 2016, at 10:49, Ted Lemon wrote: > >> I think that really what is going on here is that a very small number >> of people who talk a lot have prevented forward progress fixing an >> issue that significantly affects many IETF participants who aren't >> subscribed to ietf@ because of the noise factor and hence haven't seen >> the discussion. > > That is the opposite impression that I have gotten. It feels to me that what has happened is that the same discussion happens in multiple places with groups that have only some overlap, a person in one group is sure they know the one true solution, and that no one else has thought of it before, so they think that people who say "look at this earlier discussion" are really saying "we don't want to hear from you". > > Before I tuned out of this particular discussion (and I'm not sure why I'm tuning in again now...), I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of "A: we should do X" -> "B: but that would have the side-effect of Y" -> "A: arrgh, you're right. How about Z?" -> "C: that would have this side effect" that went on. It was a wide-ranging, open discussion of tradeoffs. After the third iteration, however, the participants maybe got a bit tired or restating them. > I think pretty much all of these side effects are better than having to go every few days through the spam folder to fish out messages from Jana and Andrei Popov. Last month It made me miss a Gen-Art review during last call. Not a huge deal, but irritating nonetheless. I think it’s time we did something, because it doesn’t look like DMARC is going away or getting any less common. Yoav