From: Kent Landfield (kent@landfield.com)
Date: Wed Mar 14 2001 - 17:08:13 CST
# On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Kent Landfield wrote:
# > ...If you added invalid to get kent@landfield.com.invalid
# > the only thing you are really accomplishing is that you are stoping the
# > readership from being able to reply to a poster directly.
#
# Uh, Kent, it sounds like you've missed the point entirely. The idea is
# not to append .invalid to a *valid* address, but to append it to the sort
# of random trash that people make up in an attempt (futile, in my view, but
# that's another issue entirely) to fend off spammers.
#
# The point is to give legitimate mail/news software a way to *tell* that
# the address is made-up and unreplyable -- something that can be quite
# difficult to determine otherwise, except by experiment -- so it can punt
# the problem back to the user promptly and gracefully, instead of having
# him get a mysterious mail bounce sometime later.
#
Yep, I did. I had better read more than the last three when trying to catch
up. ;-( I just had this harvester debate in private email with a rabid
reader. So when I saw it again...
Henry, thanks for clearing up my confusion before it confused others.
-- Kent Landfield Phone: 1-817-545-2502 Email: kent@landfield.com http://www.landfield.com/ Search the Usenet FAQ Archive at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ Search the RFC/FYI/STD/BCP Archive at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/