Re: New USEPRO path-identity text

[John Stanley <stanley@xxxxxxxx>]

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>I have NEVER EVER proposed any "MUST regarding an abuse@ address at every
>FQDN that appears in a path".

Here is the text that is unacceptable, and that you have repeatedly been 
unwilling the mandate contained therein:

   For an injecting agent prepending to a Path header field (7.2.2), the
   <path-identity> MUST be option 1 or 3 and the FQDN MUST be mailable,
   and if the agent offers its services to the general public the form
   "abuse@" that FQDN MUST also be available, unless a more specific
   complaints address has been provided in a <complainto-param> of an
   Injection-Info header field (F-3.2.14).

Yes, it does not say "every FQDN", but you know what text is being 
discussed because I have quoted it to you many times already, INCLUDING an 
acceptable alternative.

Stop pretending that you don't know what text we are talking about. Your 
pretenses are just causing frustration and wasting our time.

>May I suggest that you read USEPRO-04, and then come back here with such
>problems as you may have with what is proposed there.

May I suggest that you justify the mandate that you have created or remove 
it? The clear consensus from discussion about this text in this group is 
that the mandate in unwarranted and should be removed, and unless you 
remove it may I suggest that you step down as draft editor?

>If you cannot even take the trouble to read what is in front of you,

Get off your high horse, Charles. You've been unable to read the simple 
sentence "justify the mandate" and take appropriate action, so don't play 
this "take the trouble to read" game with me.

Either justify the new mandate or get rid of it. It's simple enough. No 
more of this nonsense about it being just like postmaster almost, or some 
hogwash about security issues. Justify a mandate for a THIRD contact 
address at a specific host or lose it.