From: J.B. Moreno (planb@newsreaders.com)
Date: Thu Jan 11 2001 - 17:24:56 CST
On 1/11/01 8:59 AM, Charles Lindsey at <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>
>
>> Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
>
>>> NOTE: The use of ".invalid" is to provide an aid to mail systems so that
>>> addresses deliberately intended to be malformed can be identified and
>>> delivery aborted. User agents MUST identify such addresses and require
>>> the user to alter the address when attempting a personal email reply.
>>> Injecting agents that have authentication information MAY choose to
>>> enforce the From-content based on the poster's authenticated identity.
>
>> I don't think putting conformance requirements in a note is a good idea,
>> and furthermore this is an interface issue. s/MUST/Ought/. No
>> interoperability problem is created by not treading .invalid specially.
>
> Noted. Other opinions?
I agree with Russ on this, I'd drop both MUST and MAY down to something
different -- "Since such addresses are undeliverable, user agents can, and
should, immediately inform the user of that fact, without attempting to mail
the message" and "Be warned that some injecting agents that use
authentication may choose to replace the From-content based upon the
authenticated identity".
(if a MAY is required it should be where the duties and privileges of the
Injecting-Agent are defined).
-- John Moreno