Subject: Re: Shame vs Engineering, also NEW conformance criteria

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:55:11 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>So in the case I gave (wapping.cs.man.ac.uk), that would result in sending
>your complaint to:

>   To: abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxx,abuse@xxxxxxxxx,abuse@xxxxx

I see you are incapable of following a simple algorithm for creating
email addresses.

Even though I cannot determine what the 'xxxxxx' stand for in each case,
it is trivial to determine that correct use of the algorithm would result
in four abuse@ addresses, not three.

>That is the machine-gun approach (you can be pretty sure that at least one
>will hit the target).

So what if it is the machine-gun approach? You get to the "top level 
domain", don't you? You don't need a mandate in USEFOR to get there, do 
you? Problem solved. Most people would be happy with a solution. I sense 
that you are not.

>Indeed, cs.man.ac.uk will reach the proper place.

Good. Was that one of the addresses in your list? If so, problem solved.
Be happy. If it wasn't, then you didn't understand the algorithm and ought
not be commenting on it.

>man.ac.uk will in fact reach someone with no responsibility for the server
>is question,

Really? That's funny. Since cs is delegated namespace, it would seem that 
man.ac.uk still has a vested interest in the operations of the cs 
department systems. That's how it works here where I work. In fact, the 
next level up from my systems is very strict, and the next level up from 
him is even louder and more obnoxious about solving problems.

>And the man at ac.uk
>would be mightily pissed off if everybody followed your algorithm and he
>found himself being copied on every complaint ever made about any student
>in the UK.

Sucks to be him. But if 'man' decides to abdicate its responsibility, then
it's up to 'ac' to cut the ties.

>And your algorithm still does not implement what RFC 2142 calls for, which
>is the "top level domain".

You've just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of RFC2142 and
what my algorithm does. My algorithm does not "implement" anything from
RFC2142, and it was never intended to "implement" anything from RFC2142.
It is up to the domain owner to "implement" the abuse reporting address
for the top level domain, not my algorithm. All it does is guarantee that
you get your email to the top level domain abuse reporting address, and it
does that.

>Which of those is the top-level domain and why,

If you use my algorithm, you don't need to know. One of them is guaranteed 
to be correct.

>when you are supposed to be sending to the TLD only,

Where did you get the impression that an abuse report must be sent to only
the top level domain abuse reporting address? Where in RFC2142 is the USER
restricted from sending an abuse report any damn place he wants to? Do you 
have any clue what RFC2142 says?

> are you sending to three addresses?

Four. 

wapping.cs.man.ac.uk, cs.man.ac.uk, man.ac.uk, ac.uk.

But you'd have to have actually read and understood the algorithm to know
the right result.