Subject: #1093 Email addresses: Poll

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:05:15 +0200

I think the issue can be broken down into two different pieces:

1) news@ and usenet@ for all path-identities in the Path: or
  Injection-info: headers
  Alternatives, plese pick one:

  1A) All identities that look like domain-names MUST support
  1B) All identities that look like domain-names SHOULD support
  1C) Some identities MUST support
      ("at least one of the <path-identity>s inserted by
      themselves" is one example of "some")
  1D) Some identities SHOULD support
  1E) No requirement
  1F) None of the above

2) abuse@ for injecting agents as identified in Path:, for the
   case where Injection-info doesn't contain "mail-complaints-to"
   Alternatives, please pick one:

  2A) All identities MUST support abuse@identity
  2B) All identities SHOULD support
  2C) No requirement
  2D) Top level domain corresponding to identity MUST support
  2E) Top level domain corresponding to identity SHOULD support
  2F) None of the above

I read Charles' currently proposed text as 1D & 2B.
Please send a message to the list saying which alternatives you support; 
once we know if there is a consensus in the working group on one pair of 
alternatives, we can go to wordsmithing.

                     Harald

---

From: Richard Clayton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 14:58:55 +0100

In message <5CDF309B260515727F61EBA3@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>, Harald
Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes

> 1D) Some identities SHOULD support

1E  but if this is too extreme, then 1D

> 2E) Top level domain corresponding to identity SHOULD support

2B (noting that this is the injecting agent ONLY), but could live with
2E (but I really don't see why people who want that can't add an
Injection-Info and avoid their perceived problems)

- -- 
richard @ highwayman . com                       "Nothing seems the same
                          Still you never see the change from day to day
                                And no-one notices the customs slip away"

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:18:36 -0700

>  1D) Some identities SHOULD support

1E.  People aren't going to support it anyway, and I don't see any reason
to raise hopes in the standard.

>  2E) Top level domain corresponding to identity SHOULD support

2C.  abuse@ is none of our business.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:06:04 +0200

> 1B) All identities that look like domain-names SHOULD support

That apparently reflects 2142 best.  Could be in a "note" with
a reference to 2142 mentioning these traditional addresses, no
2119 keyword required from my POV.  No requirement (1E), but
still mention it with a 2142 reference.

> 2B) All identities SHOULD support

That's in the spirit of 2142...

> 2D) Top level domain corresponding to identity MUST support

...dito.  IMHO we don't need 2D. it's clear.  2B is also clear,
it's just what 2142 says.  Maybe something like "SHOULD offer
mail-complaints-to, and else it's supposed to follow RfC 2142
about abuse@ addresses" could do it.

Let's not mention the "top level domain" issue.  Bye, Frank

---

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 19:35:21 -0400

On Wed August 3 2005 09:05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

In all cases (neither issue is syntax/semantics or news protocol, and
BCP 14 imperatives in an Informative document are dubious).

> Please send a message to the list saying which alternatives you support; 

I could support a recommendation-level statement in USEAGE, but that
shouldn't even be on the radar screen at this point (4 months beyond
"recharter or conclude" with neither of the standards track documents
that we're supposed to produce anywhere near capable of passing muster).

---

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:26:47 -0400

Ah, a return to Usefor WG polls that allows voting contrary to reality
and reason.

This doesn't need a poll.  The consensus is already clear from discussion,
with a cluster of well-reasoned opinions in the "ANTI" group, and one
opinion, not supported by reason, far away from that.

The path header field has a specific purpose for article propagation, not
indicating who accepts complaints and how.  There is no way to put in all
the diagnostic information included RFC2822 "Received" fields, and if we
tried the result will be about as unreliable, and as confusing and
unhelpful when Joe User only knows how to complain by emailing path
identities.

When you eliminate all the unjustified, contrary to RFC2119, and redundant
(as in "this feature is already supported by Complaints-To, or injection info"
or is properly described by other IETF documents") you are left with only
two choices, which are close enough to being the same choice that you don't
need a poll.

    1E) No requirement
    1F) None of the above

    2C) No requirement
    2F) None of the above

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:06:11 +0200

> opinion, not supported by reason, far away from that.

If that is true, interpreting the polll result should be easy.

Another interpretation of the email discussion is that we have one vocal 
proponent of one viewpoint, one vocal opponent with a clear alternative, 
and a number of viewpoints that are not strictly aligned with either of the 
two others, and a number of silent onlookers (or possibly a number of 
people who have already given up hope for consensus and stopped reading; 
it's impossible to count those).

Thanks for responding to the poll.

               Harald

---

From: [email-masked] (Ralph Babel, singing - so be afraid)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 21:03:35 +0200

> 2C) No requirement

BTW: Did I miss a "ReCharter or conclude" poll in "Apr 05"?

Oh, I see: "April 2105". ("... If Usenet is still alive ...")

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:21:32 GMT

>  1D) Some identities SHOULD support

I prefer 1C, or maybe 1D.

>  2E) Top level domain corresponding to identity SHOULD support

I prefer 2A or 2B.
2D and 2E are meaningless unless TLD is rigorously defined.

For comparison, note that RFC 2142 (interpreting "must" as "MUST") requires
1A and 2D (in fact more than 1A). I doubt that is going to represent
anything like our consensus view.

-- 
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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:23:05 +0200

Nice to hear a new voice!

> Oh, I see: "April 2105". ("... If Usenet is still alive ...")

we're behind on our milestones.....this one, too...

---

From: Dan Schlitt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 15:06:12 -0400

>   1D) Some identities SHOULD support

When I was managing a news server it would have been convenient to have
the generic e-mail addresses instead of having to keep track of who the
person was who managed news at the various sites that I exchanged news
with. But deducing e-mail addresses from the Path: seems to me to be
pretty unreliable. So I think that this is a topic that is more
appropriate for a best practices document. I guess that puts me in the
1E camp.

> I read Charles' currently proposed text as 1D & 2B.

Promoting the availability of the abuse@ e-mail address may be a good
thing for the Internet community, but it is not something that should be
in a standards document for news. It might be appropriate in a news best
practices document. The discussion there should include examples of news
specific situations where it is useful. 2C

/dan

---

From: Eivind Tagseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:37:17 +0200

>  2C) No requirement

Eivind