From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 04 2002 - 14:06:20 CDT
In <3CFAEA80.4252@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank.Ellermann@t-online.de (Frank Ellermann) writes:
>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> Not having seen the discussion in de.admin.net-abuse.mail,
>> perhaps you could summarize it for us.
>Most participants don't like invalid addresses, but accept the
>idea of (ab)using TLD .invalid as smallest damage in comparison
>with me@privacy.net, "modified" addresses, or other constructs
>to avoid spam.
I don't think it is possible to ABuse .invalid, since it was _meant_
for doing squalid things :-( . See also Henry's reply.
>> It may well be the case that a person who uses the TLD
>> .invalid may find his own cancels of his own articles not
>> honoured at many sites, but that is his problem.
>Indeed. And for the same reasons he might be unable to cancel
>faked articles with "his" invalid From: address. Or more
>precisely, there's no obvious technical definition of a "fake"
>in conjunction with invalid addresses. Maybe you could add a
>warning to 7.3 or better 5.2 about these side-effects.
Hmmm! We have fought so hard over that wording in 5.2 that I am reluctant
to change it any more at this late stage. Moreover, it would take quite a
bit of verbiage to make the point (and I am not sure how it interacts with
what you do, or don't do, about the From header in the Cancel message).
But if others support this idea, or can suggest a text, I could think
again.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5