Re: Negative feedback to our proposals

Meng Weng Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have reviewed the list of objections.  Nobody says anything new, and
> the first objection is based on the usual misunderstanding that
> designated sender affects header From.

  Agreed.

  What's even worse is the intentional misrepresentation of the
proposal, as affecting header From.  My experience with nearly
everyone opposed to RMX-style proposals is that they oppose it based
on what they *believe* is proposed, and not what is actually in the
proposal draft.  I have few polite words to describe such an attitude.


  After reading the messages, I believe that they can be safely
ignored from a technical persepctive, as they do not discuss the work
we're doing.

  From a political/emotional perspective, however, the messages are
informative.  The attitudes seen in these messages are the reasons why
I believe any draft MUST contain a discussion about the rationale for
the proposal.  Hadmut's RMX draft contains a few sentences about this
in Section 3.2, but it's insufficient for most people clue in.
Section 4 talks about "mapping of email addresses to domain names" ,
which most people will immediately take to mean header From.

  I'll try harder to have an outline of a draft ready for tomorrow.
It will be simple, short, and brutal.  Many nonsense objections may
then be addressed with "f*ck off and read Section X, which addresses
your problem."

  Alan DeKok.