Re: Security

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 22 2001 - 06:00:01 CST


In <Pine.LNX.4.10.10103201056130.32728-100000@spock.peak.org>, on
03/20/2001
   at 11:12 AM, John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> said:

>Oh, please. My adding the string ".invalid" to "kent@landfield.com"
>and then someone else removing it does not change for one second that
>the address "kent@landfield.com" belongs to Kent.

Why do you persist in attributing to people things that they didn't
write. I didn't say that "kent@landfield.com" doesn't belong to Kent.
Which part of "kent@landfield.com" != "kent@landfield.com.invalid"
don't you understand?

>and people
>will be told to simply add .invalid to their regular email addresses
>if they want to avoid spam,

Perhaps told by John Stanley. They certainly won't be told that by
anyone else I can think of.

>And when Demon tries to tell me to stop posting with that address

Except for the minor detail that your attribution is another
fabrication; he didn't say that.

>I wasn't aware that USEFOR was tasked with discussing DNS.

Aha! You're finally catching on. Thats why we shouldn't be redesigning
the architecture of the name space.
 

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
     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.