Subject: #1093 Email addresses - conclusion

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:37:00 +0200

Drawing a conclusion from the poll results:

A number of people have argued strongly about the issue.
The main arugments made seem to be on the lines of (paraphrase):

- RFC 2142 already says much of the same thing, so we don't need to say 
anything
- RFC 2142 is a failed standard, so we need to say it
- Our requirements are different from RFC 2142, so we need to say what our 
requirements are
- Abuse addresses aren't needed for interoperability, so shouldn't be in 
the protocol specification
- People need to see the requirement in the specification to know about 
appropriate behaviour
- People will do what they will do, so putting "nice to have" requirements 
into the standard is "false advertising"

I believe that everyone has heard these arguments. It seems unlikely that 
many of the participants will change their minds.

As WG chair, I conclude that it's possible that the working group can come 
to consensus on excluding these requirements from the USEFOR standard 
document. (I don't see any strong arguments against putting in a NOTE 
saying that these practices exist, however - that's not normative).

If Frank, Charles and Richard can live with a group consensus that the 
USEFOR document is to go forward without any requirement to support these 
email addresses, I can declare this issue closed - and possibly reopen the 
issue when it's time to update USEAGE.

Seems reasonable?

                        Harald

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 03:44:44 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> I don't see any strong arguments against putting in a NOTE
> saying that these practices exist, however - that's not
> normative

I'd like that, the note offers a place for "[RfC2142]" as an
informative reference.  No 2119 keywords.

> Seems reasonable?

Yes, BTW, this issue was about USEPRO, not USEFOR.  Bye, Frank

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:26:19 GMT

>issue when it's time to update USEAGE.

I can live with it if the understanding is that the topic can be covered
in USEAGE. I shall write some USEAGE text (but not this week).

In the meantime, I shall rewrite those USEPRO texts and we can debate them
as part of the Path debate (whose issue number escapes me just at the
moment). From what you have said, a NOTE pointing out that these path
identities are also used for sending email, with a pointer to USEAGE
and/or RFC 2142, would be in order.

-- 
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: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:56:10 -0400

> and/or RFC 2142, would be in order.

I object.

Despite what RFC2142 tries to claim, putting an address in the
path is not "advertising" that the machine exists for receiving
complaints via email.

If USEFOR gets a note to that effect, I am not sure what was
the point of the poll.

---

From: Henry Spencer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:06:02 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > ...From what you have said, a NOTE pointing out that these path
> ...Despite what RFC2142 tries to claim, putting an address in the

Read carefully what Charles said:  the suggested note would indicate that
the path identities *are* used for sending mail -- which is true -- not
that they necessarily *should* be. 

                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       [email-masked]

---

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:01:40 -0400

> that they necessarily *should* be. 

Somone using documented headers for wrong purposes makes no obligation
to place text in any document.

There is no end to telling implementors about stupid user behavior.

What's next?  Do we tell admins that placing a path-identity will result
in DNS lookups and "curious" NNTP CONNECT requests by people looking for
open servers?

That may be worthwhile to point out, but not in USEFOR or USEPRO, not even in a
NOTE pointing them to USEAGE.

Otherwise we end up with dozens or hundreds of NOTES pointing out that
they should read USEAGE.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:03:52 GMT

>path is not "advertising" that the machine exists for receiving

Nobody ever said it was. But if it is an FQDN (which we seem to agree is
the preferred form), then it is automatically a candidate for trying to
send email to (and, as you point out, RFC 2142 gows way beyind that, so it
can no longer be claimed that this is not a possible secondary use for the
Path entries).

Anyway, our Chair did say that a non-normative NOTE to this effect would
be in order, and therefore I propose to incorporate such a NOTE, for your
consideration.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:03:52 GMT

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:19:41 GMT

>and/or RFC 2142, would be in order.

OK, I have now been through USEPRO and removed all mention of those
"abuse", "usenet" and "news" addresses, and the start of the text on
"Identification of news-servers" now reads as follows (note that I have
taken on board Harald's suggestion of a NOTE):

   In order to record the passage of articles through the network,
   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. Whatever <path-identity> is used in the Path
   header field SHOULD be used also in any Injection-Info header field
   (and it would be normal to use it in any Xref header field also).
[Maybe that last sentence moves elsewhere.]
 
        NOTE: Such <path-identity>s may also be suitable for sending
        email to news-server administrators (see [USEAGE]).

The paragraphs following that are awaiting the outcome of the
identity/diagnostics discussions.

I have also written the following tentative piece for USEAGE (I think it
is useful to prepare a text whilst the matter is fresh in our minds - I
will accept comments on it now, but major discussion will come later when
USEAGE is fully on topic):

   The injecting agent bears a responsibility towards the rest of the
   network for ensuring both that the articles it injects are compliant
   with [USEFOR] (and so [USEPRO] imposes a duty on it to check articles
   for compliance rather thoroughly), and that they conform with the
   general expectations of the network as to what constitutes "proper
   behaviour". Its administrators therefore have a duty to be responsive
   to complaints concerning the behaviour of those posters who are
   permitted to use it.
 
   Complaints by such people should normally be sent to the email
   address specified in any "mail-complaints-to" <parameter> of its
   Injection-Info header field or, in the absence of that <parameter>,
   to "abuse@" followed by the <path-identity> in that field (or the
   <path-identity> that is inserted in the Path header field - the one
   immediately to the left of the "POSTED" <keyword> - if no Injection-
   Info header field is provided). The administrators MUST ensure that
   that email address is valid and deliverable (and naturally, any
   <path-identity> involved would have to be an FQDN).

        NOTE: These arrangements are an alternative to the "abuse"
        address recommended by [RFC 2142] (strict adherence to that RFC
        is not a requirement of [USEPRO]).  However, such complaints or
        abuse addresses are for matters concerning the behaviour of
        posters. Emails concerning technical matters should still be
        addressed to "usenet@" or "news@" followed by one of those
        <path-identity>s, following the recommendations in [RFC 2142].