Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Tanner Lovelace <lovelace AT wayfarer.org>]

Steven Champeon said the following on 3/24/04 12:46 PM:


> The first abuse annotation outlines the rationale in terms of de facto
> standards. The second says that for domain X, abuse@X must work. I guess
> I don't see your objection.

Steve, my objection is that it looks to me like things are taken out
of context.  Nowhere do I see something that says (and only says)
"Here is a list of reserved addresses that must work" and it includes
abuse.  I can find that for postmaster.  The abuse one is a *much*
more tenous connection.  Saying something is a "defacto" standard
doesn't mean it is a real standard, especially when the first annotation
completely disregards part of the sentence.  Or, are you saying I must
have trouble@ too?  Come on, Steve, you're smart.  If you can't see
my objection then try looking outside the little box you've made
for yourself.  The second annotation, btw, isn't talking about reserved
addresses at all.  It's talking about subdomains.  Show me where it
says abuse must exist as a reserved address where it's just talking
about reserved addresses and you might convince me that it's required.

I still think it's a good idea, I'm just not convinced that it's
required.

Cheers,
Tanner
--
Tanner Lovelace       | Don't move! Or I'll fill ya full of... little
lovelace AT wayfarer.org | yellow bolts of light! - Commander John Crichton