From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Fri Mar 23 2001 - 11:52:08 CST
Stop trying to drag this discussion into my mailbox. I'm including the
group in this response because that is where this discussion belongs.
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <Pine.LNX.4.10.10103211038300.8703-100000@spock.peak.org>, on
> 03/21/2001
> at 10:54 AM, John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> said:
>
> >>Why?
> >Because
>
> <red herring clipped>
>
> I know why the draft say "ending in invalid". What I want to know is
> why you want to change it to specify appending .invalid to some other
> address.
I'm not. I'm trying to get it made clear that it is NOT an address that
has .invalid appended, it is a string that looks like an address but is
not. It is an "invalid addess" before the .invalid is appended, and that
is what the .invalid is meant to flag.
> >Nobody is saying this is how you
> >generate the address that is invalid,
>
> Not true. You keep saying appended, which is a specification of how
> rather than what,
It is how you flag the invalid address, not how you create it. Nothing
says how you create the invalid address, only that you append a certain
string to it to mark is as such.
> and now you want to change the wording to match what
> you've been accusing us of wanted. Well, I for one didn't waznt it
> then and don't want it now: "ending in" expresses what we should be
> specifying.
>
> >Then the address being flagged is not invalid and the flag does not
> >mean what it claims to mean.
>
> Wrong. The address being flaged includes the string .invalid
No, it does not. If so, then YOU are telling people how to create invalid
addresses (add the string '.invalid' to create an invalid address) and
you claim that we shouldn't be doing this. I'm saying that people can
create them however they want, but to protect the sensibilities of the few
who cannot stand bounces from their email, add the flag. This is no
different than adding a new header "Address-Invalid: yes".
> and means
> what it claims to mean. A TLD of invalid does not promise anything
> about substrings, any more than a TLD of uk does.
>
> >How about:
>
> <red herring clipped>
>
> How about addressing the issues and not intrroducing specious red
> herrings.
How about keeping this crap out of my mailbox and in the public discussion
where it belongs?