Re: [Ietf-dkim] Proposals for tolerating mailing list modifications

2023-08-05 Thread Dave Crocker
By all means, let's make this a cesspool of irrelevant junk. Especially for junk that clearly has no clue about the history of DKIM. A sustained pattern of aggressively hostile postings creates a hostile work environment. Simply repeatedly warning against such behavior is obviously not ef

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Proposals for tolerating mailing list modifications

2023-08-05 Thread Michael Thomas
On 8/5/23 9:05 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 2:46 PM Michael Thomas wrote: Well, for starters ARC doesn't have broad deployment. But the author doesn't say why ARC is needed or relevant. That is the point here. *All* changes need to be justified including an

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Proposals for tolerating mailing list modifications

2023-08-05 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 2:46 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > Well, for starters ARC doesn't have broad deployment. But the author > doesn't say why ARC is needed or relevant. That is the point here. *All* > changes need to be justified including any imported mechanisms. The less > rat holes the better.

Re: [Ietf-dkim] Call for adoption results: draft-ietf-dkim-replay-problem Adopted

2023-08-05 Thread Laura Atkins
> On 5 Aug 2023, at 02:43, Jesse Thompson wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2023, at 11:08 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: >> I agree with this and have been working to recruit folks to come here. I’ll >> also be in Brooklyn and pitching the need for participation in the IETF >> working group from folks in t