Re: Rejecting Certain Non-ASCII Characters [message #181232 is a reply to message #181217] |
Mon, 22 April 2013 12:10 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701 Registered: October 2010
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Denis McMahon wrote:
> What you have defined locally is irrelevant.
ACK.
> Internet domains do not exist unless their tld is registered with the
> internet GTLD root servers, and there is a dns query path to the relevant
> domain nameserver from the internet GTLD root servers.
Some exist even without being registered that way, though:
> If you must obscure your email address, I suggest you use
> email(at)example(dot)com instead.
That would be a violation of RFC 5536 by everyday (mis)use of the
“example.com” SLD. That domain, and the “example” TLD, are for *examples*,
not address munging. See RFC 2606.
> Using <something>@invalid.invalid is just as
> bad as using any other made up domain name. (see <http://www.iana.org/
> domains/special> )
Some NetNews providers argue that it is technically correct, as because of
,-<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606>
|
| ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
| names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
| glance are invalid.
there cannot be a mailbox there.
However, the TLDs defined in RFC 2606 are not for address munging; they are
“for Testing, & Documentation Examples”. The example SLDs in defined in RFC
2606 are not for address munging either; they “can be used as examples”
only. And the current (2009) NetNews RFC does not allow them:
,-<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-3.1.2>
|
| 3.1.2. From
|
| The From header field is the same as that specified in Section 3.6.2
| of [RFC5322], with the added restrictions detailed above in
| Section 2.2.
|
| from = "From:" SP mailbox-list CRLF
That is, added *restrictions*, _not_ added freedoms.
Because using “.invalid” (or another of those domains) in a *pseudo*-address
(RFC 5322, since at least RFC 2822: “a mailbox *receives* mail”) prevents
e-mail communication in a non-obvious way (especially to non-English
speakers), whereas e-mail communication *is* important to keep Network news
clean of one-to-one communication (to clarify misunderstandings before they
evolve into flamewars; to give technical or other advice that nobody in the
group should know or care about; to arrange for personal meetings; to offer
jobs because of obvious technical expertise; etc.), it is still considered
anti-social behavior and is subject to killfile rules.
Use it for postings that you want to be read (by knowledgable people), *at
your own risk*; consider that not being read (by knowledgable people) on
NetNews is equivalent to not participate in NetNews at all.
> postmaster@localhost is of course another possibility, and should be
> valid everywhere.
Nonsense. Because it specifies a different mailbox everywhere, *if at all*,
it is _not_ Valid. “localhost” is _not_ a *Fully Qualified* *Domain Name*.
It is the *hostname* for 127.0.0.1 by default. Unless you are running an
MTA on the computer you are reading NetNews with, there cannot be such a
mailbox. And then it will be *your* mailbox you would send e-mail to, not
the author of the posting.
Use that ”address” to annoy people to no end by spamming themselves (worst
case scenario is a bounce days later, or an unexpected log file entry) when
they are trying to give you friendly off-group advice (or in any of the
aforementioned scenarios).
See also: <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>
The paper may be old, but its arguments are still valid. Address munging in
any way is *helping* spammers, and *hurting* the NetNews community,
including and firstly oneself. IOW, address munging is one of the most
stupid things you can do.
X-Post & F'up2 news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
PointedEars
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)
|
|
|