Subject: Address Validation (Was: Re: draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-02)

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:17:34 -0800 (PST)

Thorfinn <thorfinn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>I *think* that John's point is that users with otherwise valid email
>addresses may will find their articles rejected also by some sites
>(those that choose to allow only addresses *they* know to be valid).

And by rejecting them, make then effectively invalid.

>I also think that nobody else cares that this is the case,

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

>There is plenty of choice available of injecting points for users,

I guess the fact that the draft implies abilities that are completely 
fictional doesn't matter.

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>So how about, for injecting agents:

>   2. It SHOULD verify that the article is from a trusted source, and
>      MAY reject articles in which headers contain unverified email
>      addresses, that is, addresses which are not known to be valid for
>      the trusted source, though it would be perverse to reject
>      intentionally unverifiable addresses such as those ending in
>      ".invalid" (7.5).

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

And "perverse"? Foof.

>Where the relevant wording in 7.5 is:

>   Contrary to [RFC 2822], which states that the mailbox(es) in the From
>   header is that of the poster(s), a poster who does not, for whatever
>   reason, wish to use his own mailbox MAY use any mailbox ending in the
>   top level domain ".invalid" [RFC 2606].

And this solves the problem of telling users that they MAY do one thing
and server admins that they don't exactly how?

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:15:21 GMT

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

Then why make all this fuss? 

>This solves the problem of de-facto invalidation of perfectly valid 

It was not intended to solve the problem of de-facto invalidation of
perfectly valid addresses. Others (Thorfinn in particular) said they were
perfectly happy that a site might reject an article with a from address
which satisfied *its* concept of invalidity, irrespective of the fact
that mail sent to that address might well be delivered correctly.

>And "perverse"? Foof.

You think it would not be perverse?

-- 
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: [email-masked]      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