From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Fri Mar 23 2001 - 12:18:00 CST
Another message you forgot to CC the group on. Fixed.
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>
> 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?
What part of "the string you get when you remove .invalid" don't you
understand? I've been talking about the part that is left when .invalid is
removed, and kent@landfield.com.invalid is not what you get when you
remove .invalid from kent@landfield.com.invalid. Maybe if you are
incompetent at programming that is what you get, but when I do it I get
something else.
> >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.
Why would I tell them that? It will be "helpful" people who don't
understand the standard and those who have seen you say that "ending in
.invalid" is how an invalid adress ends. And even if they aren't told that
by someone else, they will come up with it on their own, just like Kent
did.
> >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 said that most of USENET doesn't work the way he said it does and asked
him who Demon was to tell them that they couldn't use an address that
Demon doesn't control, and he said that they were Demon customers that's
why. You are right, he disn't say I was a Demon customer, only "most of
USENET".
> >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.
I'm not. I am saying nothing about the string that is used as an invalid
address, only that it have .invalid appended. But then, even that is
redesigning the architecture of the namespace, whatever you thought you
meant by that. Maybe we can't specify this at all. Nothing at all about
.invalid in this draft. Yep. Fine by me.
Now, if you can't CC the group on a group discussion, stop sending it to
me. I'll not debate this stuff in two different places.