Re: I-D ACTION:draft-leibzon-responsible-submitter-00.txt (fwd)

Douglas Otis <[email protected]> wrote:
> The means to the same end was what I considered important in that this
> is stating a means to the same goal and my comments are directed to what
> I see as serious defects that can be mended.  You seem to have
> abstracted something sinister in these comments.

  Everyone knows you prefer EHLO checking, and why.  If you see flaws
in a proposal, then it would be preferred to discuss those flaws, and
only those flaws, in any thread centered around that proposal.  Any
reference to another method would be best left to one sentence, and a
reference URL to an I-D proposal.

  When a thread is about topic X, and you spend a significant part of
a message talking about topic Y, others can view that as trying to
change the topic of conversation.  Changing topics in the middle of a
thread usually warrants a change of subject line.

> I think being stubborn would be a way of describing both views it
> would seem.

  I have seen people on this list discuss EHLO checking in threads
with you.  Other threads you join (like this one), which are on other
topics, often end in discussing EHLO checks, with the same subject
line.  This can be viewed as thread hijacking.

>  Ignoring the problems does not make them disappear however.

  Accusing others of ignoring a problem because they don't like thread
hijacking is missing the point.

  If a proposal has flaws, then the proof of those flaws doesn't need
to include discussions of EHLO checking.  Leave it out of the
discussion, spend time talking about the flaws, and you're less likely
to get accused of having sinister intent.

  Alan DeKok.