Subject: Re: draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-02.txt

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 16:31:16 -0400 (EDT)

You seem to be quoting out of context.

It is relevant to this list whether the proposed changes solve the problem
which is claimed to be the motivation, and whether there are equivalent
alternatives which solve the motivating problem.

I'm trying to show that they don't solve the motivating problem, in this
case, spam control. To the extent I succeed at demonstrating that failure,
then by definition, that makes the changes proposed gratuitous and
unnecessary. Of course that's relevant.

I think it is interesting (and telling) that precisely when it is obvious
that the proposal solves no problem, that its proponents no longer want to
discuss that fact.

		--Dean

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Jim Reid wrote:

> >>>>> "Dean" == Dean Anderson <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>     Dean> Why is this irrelevant to namedroppers? The entire purpose
>     Dean> and effect of the proposed changes should be considered.
>
> Because the angels-on-a-pinhead debate you're having with Phillip
> Hallam-Baker does not belong here. If there is a forum for the two of
> you to go on and on about ISP anti-spam policies, civil rights, the
> FTC, money laundering, and Al-Queda -- to quote just a few of the
> random irrelevancies from recent postings -- that forum is definitely
> not namedroppers. Now will you please stop hijacking this list so it
> can be returned to its purpose, the discussion of DNS protocol issues?
> I fail to see how any of these things are even remotely related to a
> proposed new RR type. And no, please don't bother enlightening me or,
> more importantly, this list...
>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>