Re: Address Validation

[John Stanley <stanley@xxxxxxxx>]

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>>I am certain that nobody cares that this is the case.

>Then why make all this fuss? 

Because _I_ care if the standard says contradictory things and tells 
people they can pretend to know things they cannot.

>>This solves the problem of de-facto invalidation of perfectly valid 
>>addresses exactly how? 

>It was not intended to solve the problem of de-facto invalidation of
>perfectly valid addresses. 

So it was a rewrite for rewrite's sake, making it look like you were 
trying to compromise when none was intended and none was offered. Typical.

>>And "perverse"? Foof.

>You think it would not be perverse?

It would be stupid, it would be wrong, and it would be a conforming
application. So yes, in THAT sense, the entire thing is perverse, but
standing by itself, no. You'd have to know intent to label it thus, and
you have no knowledge of the server admin's intent, especially when it
might be a server admin who has net yet been born.