From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Sun Mar 18 2001 - 19:24:34 CST
Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se):
>"J.B. Moreno" <planb@newsreaders.com> writes:
>> And how is that different from kent@landfield.com.uglystuff.nosuchtld?
This draft does not define the use of .uglystuff.nosuchtld and does define
.invalid.
>I think the point John is trying to make is that you should not have
>the right to post with an address that is someone else's when you
>removed .invalid.
No, actually, the point I am making is that a side effect of requiring
.invalid is giving people the right to post with someone else's address
when you remove the .invalid. By saying that .invalid is what you add
to an address you have no rights to use, you approve that action.
>Of course the same applies to kent@landfield.nospam.com.invalid
Yes.
>or
>tnek@dleifdnal.moc.invalid with and "please reverse to get e-mail
>address in the body".
No. When you tell someone that they can get your valid address by
reversing the string in the From header, you are contradicting the
protection given by the standard. You are saying "that is my address",
where the use of .invalid alone is claiming that it is not.
J.B. Moreno (planb@newsreaders.com):
>Suppose my domain was "spamhaters.com" and I had the address,
>"nospam.john@spamhaters.com" -- because "john@spamhaters.com" was already
>taken, am I supposed to be responsible when someone else takes my
>perfectly legitimate address and removes the "nospam." and then send mail
>to "john@spamhaters.com"?
I beleive the difference here is that you are using a valid address and
not a fake one. Your ISP will not tell you to stop posting with that
address.
>Let's examine the orginal example of "kent@landfield.com.invalid" a bit
>more closely -- OK, removal of ".invalid" leaves what looks like an
>otherwise valid address,
No, IS a valid address. What it looks like is irrelevant.
>".invalid" says that the address doesn't belong to anyone,
No, it says it does not belong to the poster. The standard says that the
poster SHOULD append .invalid if HE is not authorized to use the mailbox.
It doesn't put any requirement at all on whether it belongs to someone
else.
>the fact that you
>can derive a possibly legitimate address out of it if you play games,
>doesn't change that fact.
Don't be silly. Of course the fact that you can get a valid address from
the string by removing .invalid changes whether or not that address
belongs to someone. It belongs to Kent. My adding .invalid and using it
does not take it away from Kent. But if using .invalid "says that the
address doesn't belong to anyone", then it must not belong to Kent either.
>As for business or other people doing background checks and finding
>similar addresses with ".invalid" -- so what?
So it will have a negative impact on innocent people. Is this not a bad
thing in your corner of the world?