Personally I completely disagree with such statements that if something
is writen once it is the best thing. It will be alwais true that for any
problem
solution you could find a better one. If not our evolution should be stopped
a long time ago.
In the case of RFCs - you can see the proof of this looking how many
RFCs are obsoleted..
May be we still should type only with upper case like 15 years ago.. :)
Regards,
Doytchin
Tim Jung wrote:
> I think before you make a statement like "I would hope that the RFC decision
> makers take a less restrictive stance on these protocols to allow for
> greater creativity" that you read up on all the background material that
> went in to making an RFC, or at a bare minimum that you become part of a
> workgroup that is creating an RFC. Then you will understand why things are
> done the way they are done. It isn't to be restrictive but rather to make
> sure it works with all platforms under most if not all conditions.
>
> Please consult the RFC's before you start saying that things should or
> should not be done a certain way, or that say good data will be excluded
> because of this or that reason. I can write a regex against the RFC's and if
> it doesn't clear the regex then it is bad data regardless of what you say or
> want. Remember that as ISP's when you get your backbone connection contract
> it tells you in there that you and your system must abide by, and be RFC
> complaint, and anything different just isn't really Internet standards.
>
> Tim Jung
> System Admin
> Internet Gateway Inc.
> tjung@igateway.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Swerve" <shwa@swerve.com>
> To: "Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org>; "Jeremy Bettis"
> <jeremyb@hksys.com>; "Lance Woodson" <lance@cswnet.com>
> Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 12:05 PM
> Subject: Re: "." before the "@"
>
> > i was one of the original posters wondering if
> > .@LegalizeMarijuana.Org would work.
> >
> > it sounds like this is not an accepted technical standard, and thus could
> > cause email disruptions because it is not universally accepted. In the
> > future i would hope that the RFC decision makers take a less restrictive
> > stance on these protocols to allow for greater creativity in this very
> cool
> > medium we are all working in.
> >
> > Josh Melamed
> >
> > ~ don't forget about the big picture. xHale
> >
> > > From: "Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org>
> > > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:04:54 -0700
> > > To: "Jeremy Bettis" <jeremyb@hksys.com>, "Lance Woodson"
> <lance@cswnet.com>
> > > Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> > > Subject: Re: "." before the "@"
> > >
> > > Just because YOUR system is tolerant of bad data and the recipient's
> > > system is tolerant of bad data doesn't mean the database should be
> > > polluted with bad data.
> > >
> > > D
> > >
> > > At 9:37 AM -0500 6/20/00, Jeremy Bettis wrote:
> > >> Because there is no need, if you hand an address to your mailer and it
> barfs
> > >> on it, it doesn't matter why it barfed.
> > >>
> > >> My point is this: most form validation doesn't help anyone. It makes
> it
> > >> harder for the customer to use and harder for the vendor to debug. If
> you
> > >> arn't going to do digitial processing on the data, then you don't need
> > >> validation conditions, if you are going to do processing on the data,
> then
> > >> use the same method for validation that you use for processing. You
> want to
> > >> know if an email address is valid, send an email. You want to see if a
> zip
> > >> code is valid, look it up in a city/state zip code database.
> > >>
> > >> Eventually someone will come along and give your form valid data that
> your
> > >> regex doesn't like for some reason. I'd rather not have to fix it
> EVER.
> > >> --
> > >> Jeremy Bettis -- Hickman-Kenyon Systems, Inc.
> > >> jeremyb@hksys.com
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Lance Woodson" <lance@cswnet.com>
> > >> Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> > >> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 1:07 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: "." before the "@"
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> I'd love to send a confirmation email but how can I send a
> confirmation
> > >>> email to an incorrectly typed email address?
> > >>>
> > >>> The testing of a regex should be pretty easy. Many eyes make few
> bugs.
> > >>> :-) /me knocks on wood.
> > >>>
> > >>> RFCs are requests for comments. They aren't automatically standards
> so
> > >>> just because someone publishes one, doesn't mean the standard changes.
> > >>> I can't fathom the standard for email addresses changing any time
> soon.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, why would you not even require an @? I'm not trying to start a
> > >>> flame war; I've just never heard an argument for not requiring an @.
> > >
> > >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:38 EDT