From: Henry Spencer (henry@spsystems.net)
Date: Fri Jun 07 2002 - 13:47:05 CDT
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, John Stanley wrote:
> > First you say that we must be precise
> > and formal in our usage of the word, employing only a very narrow meaning
> > that even you don't use consistently.
>
> I went back and read where you think I referred to
> "joe@bite.me.you.spammers" as an address, and the only other reference I
> find to that address is when I say "it is not an address for me."
The precise quotation is:
I've give you a free clue, though. When you do a DNS lookup on the domain
"bite.me.you.damn.spammers", the result might be an indication whether or
not that address is valid.
Note "that address" and "is valid". Sure sounds to me like you were
calling it an address, the only doubt being whether it's valid.
> I notice you are no longer harping on the deadline...
Since you didn't seem capable of grasping the notion that the deadline was
for *objections* -- such as yours -- and not for explanatory comments in
response to other people's discussion, it seemed pointless to keep trying
to educate you about what a "last call" is for.
> notice you are missing the important point, which is the note which allows
> an injecting agent to violate the 8.2.2 MUST NOT of step 5, which is bad.
I see nothing in what the 5.2 note allows that would violate that MUST NOT.
The MUST NOT deals with articles that are found unacceptable, not with
articles that are deemed to require addition of some headers (as quite
explicitly permitted by 8.2.2 step 10).
> I also notice you have not yet explained why your followup agent "cares"
> about what is in the From content, which is the crux of the issue around
> why this standard should care.
Because I want it to tell me -- *before* I start composing the response --
whether the response has any chance of being delivered successfully.
Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net