From: Brad Templeton (brad@templetons.com)
Date: Wed Mar 01 2000 - 17:28:11 CST
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 02:01:31PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Hopefully this will satisfy everyone, by not requiring validity checks
> which can't be done, but requiring correct action if the server chooses
> to perform checks and they fail. I see that as the union of the possible
> and desirable.
It doesn't satisfy me. As I noted, I proposed .invalid for two goals
a) Avoid wasting time replying to addresses that are fake
b) Enable methods to eliminate spam
(a) is obtained by just about any variant on the scheme, though a MUST makes
it stronger.
(b) is only obtained if it becomes common practice to get rid of the
non-conformant articles that use fake domains without .invalid