From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se)
Date: Sat Jan 13 2001 - 14:23:00 CST
Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
> 5.2. From
>
> Any mailbox in the From-content MUST belong to one of the poster(s)
> of the article, or be a mailbox which he is authorized by its owner
> to use, or be an address which ends in the top level domain of
> ".invalid" [RFC 2606].
> [Alternative Dave Barr wording:
> The mailbox in the From-content SHOULD be a valid address, belonging to
> the poster(s) of the article, or person or agent on whose behalf the
> post is being sent (see Sender). When, for political or other reasons
> the poster wishes to indicate that the address is not a valid email
> address, the From-content SHOULD be an address which ends in the top
> level domain of ".invalid" [RFC 2606].
> 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.
> ]
> [Y1 it is my intention to adopt that wording.]
I much prefer Dave Barr's wording, but I agree with Russ and others that
the MUST in the note cannot be motivated. As long it is a note, John
Moreno's suggestion "can, and should," makes sense. Alternative, remove
"NOTE:" and use Ought.
As for the remaining SHOULD that Charles flagged, but didn't change,
I agree that all should stay SHOULD. The Ought that was a SHOULD was
right too.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se