Subject: #1093 Email addresses: Poll

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:31:09 -0700 (PDT)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>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

And just how do we define what "looks like" a domain name? And why should 
WE be defining what "looks like" a domain name, when our task is USENET?

 1F) None of the above

I guess I have to go with that, since none of the options is correct. 
We can justify a MUST for one (or both, by stretching history) for every 
site, but "looks like a domain name" is silly. 

>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

Expressly contradicted by existing standard.

> 2C) No requirement

Since existing standards already put some requirement on this, how can we 
come along and say "no requirement"? 

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

There is already a standard that says this. Why should we repeat it?

 2F) None of the above

I guess I'll have to go with this one, again, since none of the options 
are correct. The correct option is:

 2G: We say nothing because it has already been covered in other standards
     which have responsibility for this area.

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

When Charles says "MUST", it does not match 2B (SHOULD), it matches 2A. 
And I just reread your question to make sure, and yes, you clearly specify 
the case "Injection info does't contain", which is most definitely when 
Charles's MUST kicks in.

---

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:55:33 -0700 (PDT)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>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,

All of the ones I've seen have been pretty clear: MUST is not justified.
It would be a stretch of the imagination to not see that as aligning with
"MUST is not justified".

> it's impossible to count those).

People who don't care enough to express an opinion are now supposed to 
decide what we do? Wow.