From: Matt Curtin (cmcurtin@interhack.net)
Date: Wed Jun 05 2002 - 16:50:16 CDT
John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
> It should not have "quirks of wording".
Agreed. Nevertheless, we've got such issues, including the definition
a brand new vocabulary for standards documents, e.g., OUGHT. Heck, I
think we should use the suffix .bogus since .invalid is easily
confused with someone incapable of movement.
> We are telling all users how they should formulate the content of
> the From header if they want not to reveal their spammable or other
> email address for whatever reason.
...at which point, we've gone beyond the mandate of specifying the
format for a Usenet article.
I don't understand why we're having this discussion. Why not say it's
an email address and leave it at that. Some people are going to put
in a valid email address, others will put in bogus email addresses,
and still others will put in email addresses that belong to other
people. If there's some Internet-wide need to formulate bogus email
addresses, that should be addressed in a separate document, and in a
separate working group, for that matter.
Do we yet hold the IETF record for the longest active working group
not to produce as much as an RFC?
We're trying to solve way too many problems at once, and in a document
that's supposed to do nothing more than to define current practice.
Why are we trying to solve *any* problems here? Our only concern at
this point should (or is that OUGHT?) be whether it happens widely.
If it does, it's in, if it doesn't, it's out.
If something stupid is happening, we can deal with said stupidity in a
subsequent document, deprecating the stupidity.
-- Matt Curtin Interhack Corp +1 614 545 HACK http://web.interhack.com/ Author, Developing Trust: Online Privacy and Security (Apress, 2001) Knight of the Lambda Calculus | Quod scripsi scripsi. --Pontius Pilate