Subject: Re: #1093 Email addresses - conclusion

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:59:34 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

   The administrators MUST ensure that
   that email address is valid and deliverable (and naturally, any
   <path-identity> involved would have to be an FQDN).

We went round this circle already. 

This is not group consensus.

Do we want to go round this circle again, or will the chair actually 
enforce his own rulings?

'No mention' is  a simple concept.

---

From: Steve Walker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:08:37 -0500

> 'No mention' is  a simple concept.

For what it's worth, I also think foolish to try to force FQDN 
path stamps and it's a major change from common practice.  A very 
large number of path stamps are not FQDN's, and even a larger 
number will not have email services setup regardless of what any 
new RFC mandates.

Steve.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:55:14 +0200

John,

stop misrepresenting what I said.

When you tried to interpret my ruling on this subject as making the 
question out of scope for USEAGE too, I said that you were wrong. 
Repeatedly.

It is IN scope for us to discuss this related to USEAGE , but USEAGE is not 
presently on our schedule of things to discuss.

               Harald