Re: .invalid (MUST versus SHOULD) alterative (was Re: What next?)

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel@acm.org)
Date: Thu Mar 09 2000 - 07:15:19 CST


In <200003081945.OAA06739@darkstar.prodigy.com>, on 03/08/2000
   at 02:45 PM, davidsen@prodigy.com (Bill Davidsen) said:

>What I had in mind was "invalid address" rather than server down. Or
>no such domain valid, or some spammer using abuse@prodigy.com as her
>from address, etc.

>Your point is well taken, please clarify to state the intent better
>if you think it would be a problem. I have in my mind an actual
>rejection rather than just a "not now" reply.

I would strike the reference to not deliverable and just leave the
reference to unauthorized:

  If an injecting agent determines that an address not ending
  in the TLD "invalid" is not authorized to the poster, it MUST
  reject the article.

An actual rejection does not tell you that the address is not
deliverable. Do we really want to prohibit, e.g., the use of a white
list? What about a filter that bounces everything not containing a
References header that matches the id of a news article posted from
that address? I just don't see a viable way to use deliverable as a
criterion for rejecting articles.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2
     Team OS/2
     Team PL/I
-----------------------------------------------------------


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.