From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 12:49:19 CDT
> <Shmuel+gen@patriot.net> writes:
>>Could we do a poll on this? I not only agree with John's
>>interpretation, but consider the change to the text to have been a
>>major one that should have been discussed first.
>I think the problem is not my new text, but the wording of step 10 in
>8.2.2.
If you thought step 10 had a problem, then you had plenty of time to bring
it up prior to last call. Yes, the problem is your unilateral change to
step 5.
> I think the change that you and John are asking for is that an
> injector SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT insert a Sender-header (currently, it
> just points out that it is a dumb idea).
That is not true. Nowhere in the note under 5.2 does it say that inserting
a sender header is a dumb idea. In fact, it explicitely permits this
action. If it is a dumb idea, let's just prohibit it and get on with our
lives.
> I would point out that this is now the THIRD time John has instigated a
> huge thread on this list on this topic.
So what? Third time's the charm, some say. And a "huge thread" takes more
than one person to "instigate", so I'd say the issue I brought up is still
not closed, nor is the issue of you unilaterally changing the draft.
> On both the previous occasions it
> was abundantly clear that the consensus was against him.
Funny thing about "clear". Such a subjective word. Even a clear consensus
to do somthing stupid is not enough of a reason to stop debate. And given
your claim that it is a "dumb idea", and the previous wording in step 5
and step 10, I'd say it is pretty clear that the consensus was with me,
just not with removing the permissive wording in the note under 5.2.
> On the last
> occasion we discussed and discussed and discussed the wording of
> 8.2.2.Step 10, and it went through several versions before it arrived at
> what we now have.
Straw man. Step 10 is not the issue. The new version of step 5 is. And the
permissive language of the note in 5.2 still is.
> All indications in this present thread are that the
> consensus has not changed.
Nor has the wording in step 10, but the wording, and meaning, of step 5
has, and it permits a lot of things that the consensus that produced step
10 intended would prohibit. Like changing the Subject header based on
"site policy". Like changing any header based on "site policy".
> Other who wish to have a poll should so indicate before Monday.
How swell, you publish a time limit on Friday that expires before Monday.
I'm sure everyone spends their entire weekend reading this list just to
keep up with your ever-changing sets of deadlines.