From: Thorfinn (thorfinn@tertius.net.au)
Date: Thu Mar 22 2001 - 20:21:39 CST
On Wed 21 Mar 2001 at 10:28:03AM +0000, in <GAJMEr.IA8@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>,
Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> So I now have:
> 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 the Sender header, 6.2). When, for
> personal reasons, the poster the poster does not wish to include such
> an adddress, the From-content SHOULD then be an address which ends in
> the top level domain of ".invalid" [RFC 2606].
> NOTE: Since such addresses ending in ".invalid" are
> undeliverable, user agents Ought to warn any user attempting to
> reply to them and Ought Not, in any case, to attempt to deliver
> to them (since that would be pointless anyway).
> [perhaps add:]
> Whether or not a valid address can subsequently be extracted from
> such an address falls outside the scope of this standard (though
> it would be perverse to make the disguise too easily penetrable).
> My intention is to include that "perhaps add" bit unless I hear
> protestations to the contrary.
I think that just:
Whether or not a valid address can subsequently be extracted from
such an address falls outside the scope of this standard. However,
there is no ownership between addresses ending in ".invalid" and
addresses that do not, or vice versa.
is better. (except for the word "ownership" - it's clumsy and I'm note
sure how best to express it - see down a bit.)
It's pretty clear that that means we don't mandate what's going on
under .invalid... we don't care, it's not our problem. If someone
random starts posting as thorfinn@tertius.net.au.invalid instead of
their own address... that's just fine by me.
I don't see *any* way to prevent that, while keeping the purpose of
.invalid intact, and I'm quite happy to point out that, well, the
.invalid on the end means just that. It's not a valid mailbox.
There's no attachment between *anything* in .invalid to anything
outside .invalid, *or vice versa*.
On Wed 21 Mar 2001 at 10:18:00PM -0000, in <20010321221800.18474.qmail@kairos.algonet.se>,
Erland Sommarskog <sommar@algonet.se> wrote:
> Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk) writes:
> > Whether or not a valid address can subsequently be extracted from
> > such an address falls outside the scope of this standard (though
> > it would be perverse to make the disguise too easily penetrable).
> "Perverse"????
> Please change that some more neutral language.
I favour leaving that chunk out entirely, and just making it clear
that there isn't *any* claim on any address inside .invalid.
> And I still don't like "for personal reasons"...
I prefer it being there, just to make it clearer that it should be due
to user choice, rather than just randomly done by injecting agents, or
proxies, or something.
Later,
Thorf
-- <a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn">thorfinn@tertius.net.au</a> The Seventh Commandment for Technicians: Work thou not on energized equipment, for if thou dost, thy fellow workers will surely buy beers for thy widow and console her in other ways.