Trey has (I think) clarified that he does not want to come down on the matter of the Atonement one way or another.
"There are lots of folks who don’t want to come down on the matter one way or another. R. L. Dabney was one of those. David Ponter is also one. But like Dabney, while not taking a side on the issue, i see Ponter’s views as aligning most closely with Infralapsarianism, not with Amyraldism."
I disagree with Trey, but there you have it. I see Dabney's views coming down pretty clearly on the "strict" Limited Atonement side, and I see Ponter's view coming down to the Amyraldian side of Dabney's views.
Trey also seems to suggest that somehow there is confusion being made between Infralapsarian and Amyraldian. I am familiar with both categories, and I don't see the connection that is being made.
This matter, however, has generated more heat than light on the matter, so I don't have further comments on Trey's further remarks at this time.