Subject: Re: New USEPRO path-identity text (Hello, Chair?)

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:51:21 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>   In order to record the passage of articles through the network, and
>   to enable their administrators to be contacted, news-servers need to
>   identify themselves by means of a <path-identity> (F-3.1.6), which
>   can appear in Path, Injection-Info and Xref header fields.

Is it the function of Path to "enable administrators to be contacted", or 
is it to simply record the path the article has taken? 

>   <Path-identity>s can take the following forms (in decreasing order of
>   suitability):

Either suitable is or is not. Your preference is not a measure of 
suitability. Do you really mean "preference"?

>   3. Some other (arbitrary) name believed to be unique and registered
>      at least with all other news-servers sending articles directly to

Hyphen-ated news-servers why-is?

>      the given one. The news-server administrator is responsible for
>      choosing an appropriate name (and will bear the consequences of an
>      inappropriate choice). This option SHOULD NOT be used unless the

Here's that threat again. Tell the admin how to do it right and stop 
threatening him with unspecified "consequences" for listening to us.

>        NOTE: The syntax permits the colon character (which, prior to
>        this standard, was a <path-delimiter>) within any <path-
 
The last text I saw Harald produce for this did NOT allow colons.

>   There are two circumstances when news-server administrators may need
>   to be contacted by email:

Irrelevant for a specification of a protocol. People are free to imagine 
any number of reasons they want for contacting a news server admin. That 
excuse makes the entire section it heads specious.

>      For sending complaints concerning the behavior of the poster of an
>      article, the correct address is

Outside the scope of a protocol definition, and already covered by 
existing standards. Why do we* continue to demand that we redefine 
existing standards that are outside our scope?

* by "we", of course, I mean "Charles acting on our behalf".

>   2. (all agents)
>      For reporting technical problems concerning the operation of a
>      news-server, the correct address is either "news@" or "usenet@"
 
So if I see a problem with a server I know is run by Russ, I cannot 
contact him directly, I have to send it through news@somewhere? I really 
want to do "the correct thing", so please enlighten me why it isn't to 
contact him directly?

>        NOTE: The mechanisms set out above are broadly compatible with
>        the provisions of [RFC 2142].

Right. Whatever. 

>      Injecting agent administrators SHOULD[2,3] ensure that a working
>      email address is obtained by this process.

Define "working email address". Is it the same as "mailable"? Given that
"working" says nothing about "delivered to a human who actually reads it",
or being able to pass through MAPS or ORBS or RBL or whatever the filter
of the day is, about the best I can see us being able to specify is that
the address is syntactically correct. We can't specify much stronger than
that, since anything stronger will simply be ignored by anyone who
implements spam filters for role accounts. And who doesn't, these days?

>   [3]  Do we want to relax the need for an abuse address at small
>        private servers, or even at all servers not offering a public
>        service?

We have no authority to relax the need for an abuse address "at small
private servers", since every "small private server" that has a FQDN will
also have a top level domain to go with it, and RFC2142 already covers the
requirements for top level domain abuse addresses. Please STOP pretending
that if we don't mandate it that we are releasing anyone from already
existing mandates in other standards.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:09:57 GMT

>is it to simply record the path the article has taken? 

Both. And any other diagnostic uses people can find for it.

>suitability. Do you really mean "preference"?

OK. I've put "preference".

>Hyphen-ated news-servers why-is?

That is the technical term as I have defined it in USEPRO. It could easily
be changed throughout if needs be.

>The last text I saw Harald produce for this did NOT allow colons.

Harald's syntax is not yet definitive. And it did include colons within
<IPv6address>s, so you still need to eschew "dead" and "beef".

>the address is syntactically correct.

The minimum we can expect is that is does not bounce (i.e. if you give it
as RCPT TO: to the proper server, then it will not be (permanently)
blocked).

If you can suggest any other phrase in place of "working" that conveys
that sense, without going into long descriptions of SMTP protocol details,
then please do so.

-- 
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