It is also foolish though to say that just because an RFC was written years
ago that it should apply anymore since everything changes. If you don't like
how an RFC is written then I suggest you come up with your own RFC to
replace it. That is how the internet IETF and RFC's work.
Tim Jung
System Admin
Internet Gateway Inc.
tjung@igateway.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doytchin Spiridonov" <info@webyou.com>
To: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: "." before the "@"
> 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