Re: homework, not an experiment, draft-crocker-email-deliveredto

On 8/3/2021 7:19 PM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Dave Crocker  <[email protected]> said:
>> While saying 'internal version of the address' sounds quite special,
>> there is, as of yet, no example that has been provided, to show what
>> makes it different from a regular email address, nor any technical
>> detail provided that makes clear what needs to be supported, but is not,
>> in the current draft.
>>
>> Elaborations and, well, technical details, continue to be eagerly sought.
> 
> Postfix and qmail are open source.  We've read the code.  You can, too.

John, you've made an assertion of fact.  The obligation for doing the 
work to substantiate the assertion rests with the person making it.

Telling others to go do the research is a gaming ploy and I thought you 
said you weren't going to play the game any more.

With your extensive IETF experience, I'd think you know what constitutes 
constructive participation, but you are doing a heck of a job of 
pretending you don't.


> If you're not willing or unable to read the code, that's OK, but in
> that case I would appreciate it if you refrained from claiming that we
> are lying.

Since I said and implied (and meant) nothing of the sort, and since you 
know I didn't, it means that you are, now.

Or else it means that you've taken statements that are nothing of the 
sort and actually believe they mean something they don't, in which case 
you've descended into hardcore paranoia.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net