Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #15445 > unrolled thread

response for server every second

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-10 06:59 -0700
    Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-10 10:18 -0400
    Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-10 16:41 +0200
      Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-10 11:55 -0400
        Re: response for server every second Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> - 2015-06-10 16:50 +0000
          Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-10 13:23 -0400
            Re: response for server every second Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2015-06-10 10:37 -0700
              Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-10 14:27 -0400
      Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-10 23:38 -0700
      Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-11 00:14 -0700
        Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-11 12:09 +0200
          Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-11 04:16 -0700
            Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-11 14:37 +0200
              Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-11 06:20 -0700
                Re: response for server every second Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-06-11 13:45 -0400
              Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-11 23:35 -0700
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-12 09:10 -0400
            Re: response for server every second Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-06-12 03:59 +0000
              [off topic nodejs advertisement] Was Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-15 16:08 +0200
                Performance of PHP vs. Node.js (was: [off topic nodejs advertisement]) "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-06-15 20:42 +0200
                  Re: Performance of PHP vs. Node.js Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-16 00:20 +0200
                    Re: Performance of PHP vs. Node.js "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-06-16 00:58 +0200
            Re: response for server every second gordonb.890nt@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-06-13 13:39 -0500
              Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-18 23:16 -0700
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-19 08:16 -0400
                  Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-21 23:06 -0700
                    Re: response for server every second "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2015-06-22 08:03 -0500
                    Re: response for server every second Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:39 +0000
                      Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-23 07:23 -0400
      Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-22 18:37 +0200
        Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-22 18:42 +0200
        Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-23 17:11 +0200
          Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-24 00:06 +0200
            Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-23 19:10 -0400
              Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-24 01:45 +0200
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-23 20:21 -0400
                  Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-23 23:34 -0700
                    Re: response for server every second bill <william@TechServSys.com> - 2015-06-24 06:58 -0400
                  Re: response for server every second Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-25 17:18 +0200
                    Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-25 20:31 -0400
                      Technical requiremenets for Usenet messages (was: Re: response for server every second) Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-26 10:43 +0200
                        Re: Technical requiremenets for Usenet messages Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-26 21:47 +0200
                          Re: Technical requiremenets for Usenet messages Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-26 22:19 +0200
                    Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-25 23:07 -0400
                      Re: response for server every second Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-26 10:21 +0200
                        Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-26 06:48 -0400
                          Technical requirements for Usenet messages (was Re: response for server every second) Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-26 13:48 +0200
                            Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages (was Re: response for server every second) Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-26 14:29 -0400
                              Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-27 14:49 +0200
                                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-27 10:25 -0400
                                  Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-28 17:52 +0200
                                    Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-28 20:08 -0400
                                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2015-06-27 22:14 -0500
                                  Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-28 17:54 +0200
                                    Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-28 20:10 -0400
                                      Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-30 09:54 +0200
                                        Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-30 08:45 -0400
                                          Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-30 16:20 +0200
                                            Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-30 15:00 -0400
                                              Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-07-06 13:36 +0200
                                                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-07-06 11:56 -0400
                                                  Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-06 18:54 +0100
                                                    Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-07-06 16:54 -0400
                                                      Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-07 00:00 +0100
                                                        Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-07-06 22:08 -0400
                                                          Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-07 07:24 +0100
                                                            Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-07-07 10:41 -0400
                                                              Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-07-09 22:52 -0700
                                  Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 03:07 +0000
                    Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-26 21:13 +0200
              Re: response for server every second Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 09:52 +0100
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-24 09:21 -0400
                  Re: response for server every second Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 18:48 +0100
                    Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-24 20:55 +0200
                      Re: response for server every second Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 20:55 +0100
                    Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-24 15:21 -0400
                      Re: response for server every second Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 20:35 +0100

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#15533 — Technical requiremenets for Usenet messages (was: Re: response for server every second)

Am 2015-06-26 um 02:31 schrieb Jerry Stuckle:

[...]
> Sorry, sucker - it is not required you have a valid email address - only
> one which can be easily decoded.

See <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036>:

2.1.  Required Header lines

2.1.1.  From

    The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the
    person who sent the message, in the Internet syntax.  It may
    optionally also contain the full name of the person, in parentheses,
    after the electronic address.
[...]


I don't see anything like "does not need to be the valid address, as
long as humans can decode it somehow manually".

Also the draft for the son of RFC1036 does not contain anything like
this - see
<http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/outerspace/netnews/son-of-1036.html#5.2>:

"The From header contains the electronic address, and possibly the full
name, of the article's author
[...]
The address SHOULD be a valid and complete Internet domain address,
capable of being successfully mailed to by an Internet host [...]"


Again no word about "may be invalid as long as a human is able to decode
it somehow".

But I know what will follow now: You will explain that RFC1036 is quite
old, the draft is also really old and they do not fit current needs and
therefore are not valid any longer.

Of course you would never write your own RFC draft to straighten this
out - because RFCs asking for a valid e-mail address or to keep
signatures within reasonable limits are for pedantic trolls - aren't they?


-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15538 — Re: Technical requiremenets for Usenet messages

Arno Welzel wrote:

> Am 2015-06-26 um 02:31 schrieb Jerry Stuckle:
> [...]
>> Sorry, sucker - it is not required you have a valid email address - only
>> one which can be easily decoded.

Nonsense.

> See <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036>:

| Obsoleted by: 5536, 5537  

> I don't see anything like "does not need to be the valid address, as
> long as humans can decode it somehow manually".

And indeed, there is not.
 
> Also the draft for the son of RFC1036 […]
> <http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/outerspace/netnews/son-of-1036.html#5.2>:

Long expired; not to be cited as reference material anyway:

| Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months. 
| Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 
| at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference 
| material or to cite them other than as a "working draft" or "work in 
| progress".

And nowadays even the “Son of (RFC) 1036” is obsolete:

| Independent Submission                                        H. Spencer
| Request for Comments: 1849                                    SP Systems
| Obsoleted by: 5536, 5537                                      March 2010
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Category: Historic
| ISSN: 2070-1721
| 
| 
|           "Son of 1036": News Article Format and Transmission

> But I know what will follow now: You will explain that RFC1036 is quite
> old, the draft is also really old

Not only really old; they are *obsolete* and *expired*, respectively, which 
is quite a different thing.  (RFC 2616 – HTTP/1.1 – of 1999 is "really old" 
now, but implemented and still valid.)

But:

The (currently) Proposed Standard RFC 5536 of 2009 CE, which obsoletes RFCs 
1036 and 1849, and has not been obsoleted itself yet – so it for all intents 
and purposes it *is* *the* Internet standard on this –, makes no allowances 
in this matter:

| 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

The referred section 3.6.2 of RFC 5322 (“Internet Message Format”) says 
explicitly:

|  In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that
|  does not belong to the author(s) of the message.  See also section
|  3.6.3 for more information on forming the destination addresses for a
|  reply.

I have only read in some IETF document (could have been an RFC, maybe even 
on the Standards Track) that using the “invalid” TLD in some address header 
fields would be allowed.  I have forgotten which one (RFC 2606 is _not_ it), 
and I have not found it again yet.  Hints are appreciated.

-- 
PointedEars
Zend Certified PHP Engineer
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15539 — Re: Technical requiremenets for Usenet messages

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> I have only read in some IETF document (could have been an RFC, maybe even
> on the Standards Track) that using the “invalid” TLD in some address
> header fields would be allowed.  I have forgotten which one (RFC 2606 is 
> _not_ it), and I have not found it again yet.  Hints are appreciated.

Found it:

,-<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5537#section-3.4>
| 
| 3.4.  Duties of a Posting Agent
| 
| […]
| Contrary to [RFC5322], which implies that the mailbox or mailboxes in
| the From header field should be that of the poster or posters, a
| poster who does not, for whatever reason, wish to use his own mailbox
| MAY use any mailbox ending in the top-level domain ".invalid"
| [RFC2606].

That, too, is part of a Proposed Standard.  I find that unfortunate.

However, it *also* does not mean that address munging would have to be 
accepted, that it would not be anti-social behavior anymore.  It is only a 
“MAY” (see RFC 2119 for the definition), and RFCs regard only the technical 
side of communication.  There is also a social side to it: “Internet is the 
thing with cables; Usenet is the thing with *people*”.  The author of 

<http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>

has confirmed publicly recently that he is still standing by those 
statements, and there are not only a few people who agree with that.  
(Especially as spam filters are getting better.)

The “invalid” TLD only *can* make it easier to recognize pseudo-addresses 
(not everyone’s native language is English, not everyone knows about 
Internet protocols, not everyone sees the automatically chosen receiver 
field values); up to the point of filtering out all the offending messages 
in the first place (which I still do).

-- 
PointedEars
Zend Certified PHP Engineer
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15531

On 6/25/2015 11:18 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> 
> Nope - I do too. That's the reason why I limit my signature to four
> lines. Many other posts here also just have 4 lines or less in their
> signature. These extra "==================" in your signature are just
> needless.
> 
> But this fits the invalid sender address and the need for explanations
> how one can reply to your real address <jstuckle@attglobal.net>.
>

Actually, I need to rephrase that.  Anyone who is so mean as to post
someone else's real address needs serious psychiatric help.  It's not
something reasonable people do.

But we already knew that.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15532

Jerry Stuckle:

> On 6/25/2015 11:18 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>
>> Nope - I do too. That's the reason why I limit my signature to four
>> lines. Many other posts here also just have 4 lines or less in their
>> signature. These extra "==================" in your signature are just
>> needless.
>>
>> But this fits the invalid sender address and the need for explanations
>> how one can reply to your real address <jstuckle@attglobal.net>.
>>
> 
> Actually, I need to rephrase that.  Anyone who is so mean as to post
> someone else's real address needs serious psychiatric help.  It's not
> something reasonable people do.

Reasonable people don't need to use an "obfuscated" sender adresses.
Just look around - how many people here except you use this kind of
"obfuscation" and ask others to replace or remove parts of the invalid
address? If you are not able to use a mail server with proper spam
filtering it's your problem, not mine.


-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15534

On 6/26/2015 4:21 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle:
> 
>> On 6/25/2015 11:18 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>>
>>> Nope - I do too. That's the reason why I limit my signature to four
>>> lines. Many other posts here also just have 4 lines or less in their
>>> signature. These extra "==================" in your signature are just
>>> needless.
>>>
>>> But this fits the invalid sender address and the need for explanations
>>> how one can reply to your real address <jstuckle@attglobal.net>.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, I need to rephrase that.  Anyone who is so mean as to post
>> someone else's real address needs serious psychiatric help.  It's not
>> something reasonable people do.
> 
> Reasonable people don't need to use an "obfuscated" sender adresses.
> Just look around - how many people here except you use this kind of
> "obfuscation" and ask others to replace or remove parts of the invalid
> address? If you are not able to use a mail server with proper spam
> filtering it's your problem, not mine.
> 
> 

It actually was quite common a few years back, when Usenet was more
active.  And it's a lot better than posting an invalid email address, as
many people do.  But if you can't follow a simple instruction like
dropping a single character from an email address, you have other
problems.  But that's OK - I don't want email from the likes of you, anyway.

But then anyone who is so mean as to post someone else's real address
needs serous psychiatric help.  It's not something reasonable people do.


-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15535 — Technical requirements for Usenet messages (was Re: response for server every second)

Am 2015-06-26 um 12:48 schrieb Jerry Stuckle:

> On 6/26/2015 4:21 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
[...]
>> Reasonable people don't need to use an "obfuscated" sender adresses.
>> Just look around - how many people here except you use this kind of
>> "obfuscation" and ask others to replace or remove parts of the invalid
>> address? If you are not able to use a mail server with proper spam
>> filtering it's your problem, not mine.
> 
> It actually was quite common a few years back, when Usenet was more
> active.  And it's a lot better than posting an invalid email address, as
> many people do.  But if you can't follow a simple instruction like
> dropping a single character from an email address, you have other
> problems.  But that's OK - I don't want email from the likes of you, anyway.

In the last 15 years it was not "quite common". Maybe it was common in
the mid 1990ies or earlier in your world. But then I wonder, why RFCs
from that time ask for valid sender addresses, if it was common *not* to
use valid addresses. Do the RFC authors try to convince people to do
stupid things which make no sense in the real world? I don't think so.

> But then anyone who is so mean as to post someone else's real address
> needs serous psychiatric help.  It's not something reasonable people do.

So why did you then quote the parts of my posts with your own address
over and over again, if you don't want it to be published as part of
Usenet messages?


-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15536 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages (was Re: response for server every second)

On 6/26/2015 7:48 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Am 2015-06-26 um 12:48 schrieb Jerry Stuckle:
> 
>> On 6/26/2015 4:21 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> [...]
>>> Reasonable people don't need to use an "obfuscated" sender adresses.
>>> Just look around - how many people here except you use this kind of
>>> "obfuscation" and ask others to replace or remove parts of the invalid
>>> address? If you are not able to use a mail server with proper spam
>>> filtering it's your problem, not mine.
>>
>> It actually was quite common a few years back, when Usenet was more
>> active.  And it's a lot better than posting an invalid email address, as
>> many people do.  But if you can't follow a simple instruction like
>> dropping a single character from an email address, you have other
>> problems.  But that's OK - I don't want email from the likes of you, anyway.
> 
> In the last 15 years it was not "quite common". Maybe it was common in
> the mid 1990ies or earlier in your world. But then I wonder, why RFCs
> from that time ask for valid sender addresses, if it was common *not* to
> use valid addresses. Do the RFC authors try to convince people to do
> stupid things which make no sense in the real world? I don't think so.
>

Back in the days the RFC was written, there were no problems with SPAM
and SPAMBOTS mining usenet for email addresses.  A simple CAPTCHA like
this is not out of line.  The valid email address can easily be
determined by a human, satisfying the intent of the RFC.

>> But then anyone who is so mean as to post someone else's real address
>> needs serous psychiatric help.  It's not something reasonable people do.
> 
> So why did you then quote the parts of my posts with your own address
> over and over again, if you don't want it to be published as part of
> Usenet messages?
> 
> 

Once your sick mind posted it, it made no difference.  But I would
suggest you seek psychiatric help.  You are one sick person.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15540 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

(Cc: the contact of Eternal September)

Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-06-26 um 20:29:

> On 6/26/2015 7:48 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
[...]
>> In the last 15 years it was not "quite common". Maybe it was common in
>> the mid 1990ies or earlier in your world. But then I wonder, why RFCs
>> from that time ask for valid sender addresses, if it was common *not* to
>> use valid addresses. Do the RFC authors try to convince people to do
>> stupid things which make no sense in the real world? I don't think so.
>>
> 
> Back in the days the RFC was written, there were no problems with SPAM
> and SPAMBOTS mining usenet for email addresses.  A simple CAPTCHA like
> this is not out of line.  The valid email address can easily be
> determined by a human, satisfying the intent of the RFC.

BTW: You use eternal-september.org - did you ever read their terms of use?

<http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=terms>

Quote:

Users of the news server news.eternal-september.org are obliged to abide
by the following rules. Failure to do so will cause immediate
termination of access rights without prior notice.

* Sender Address

  The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:"
  SHOULD be yours (i.e. you should be entitled to use it) and SHOULD be
  valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity). Using addresses
  and name space of other people without their consent is prohibited.

(unquote)

So - to use the services of eternal-september.org it is *required* to
use a valid sender address or the TLD ".invalid" according to RFC5537 by
2009(!) (<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5537.txt>) which replaced
RFC1036 and SON-OF-RFC1036.

You may not like these rules. But this does not mean, you can just
ignore them by using an invalid address and call other people "pedantic
trolls" and "sick".


-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15541 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

On 6/27/2015 8:49 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> (Cc: the contact of Eternal September)
> 
> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-06-26 um 20:29:
> 
>> On 6/26/2015 7:48 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> [...]
>>> In the last 15 years it was not "quite common". Maybe it was common in
>>> the mid 1990ies or earlier in your world. But then I wonder, why RFCs
>>> from that time ask for valid sender addresses, if it was common *not* to
>>> use valid addresses. Do the RFC authors try to convince people to do
>>> stupid things which make no sense in the real world? I don't think so.
>>>
>>
>> Back in the days the RFC was written, there were no problems with SPAM
>> and SPAMBOTS mining usenet for email addresses.  A simple CAPTCHA like
>> this is not out of line.  The valid email address can easily be
>> determined by a human, satisfying the intent of the RFC.
> 
> BTW: You use eternal-september.org - did you ever read their terms of use?
> 
> <http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=terms>
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Users of the news server news.eternal-september.org are obliged to abide
> by the following rules. Failure to do so will cause immediate
> termination of access rights without prior notice.
> 
> * Sender Address
> 
>   The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:"
>   SHOULD be yours (i.e. you should be entitled to use it) and SHOULD be
>   valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity). Using addresses
>   and name space of other people without their consent is prohibited.
>

Right.  SHOULD be yours and SHOULD be valid.  I'm not violating any T&C.

> (unquote)
> 
> So - to use the services of eternal-september.org it is *required* to
> use a valid sender address or the TLD ".invalid" according to RFC5537 by
> 2009(!) (<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5537.txt>) which replaced
> RFC1036 and SON-OF-RFC1036.
> 

You don't understand plain English very well, do you (even though it
isn't your native language, the wording is VERY CLEAR).  But then those
in need of psychiatric care are like that.

> You may not like these rules. But this does not mean, you can just
> ignore them by using an invalid address and call other people "pedantic
> trolls" and "sick".
> 
> 

I'm not ignoring them.  And I'm only calling a sick troll what he is.
You don't like it?  Then get the help you so badly need.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15545 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-06-27 um 16:25:

> On 6/27/2015 8:49 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
[...]
>> <http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=terms>
[...]
> Right.  SHOULD be yours and SHOULD be valid.  I'm not violating any T&C.

Did you really read it? SHOULD is only there because using the TLD
".invalid" is also accepted.

Furthermore:

"Using addresses and name space of other people without their consent is
prohibited."

Is "jstucklex@attglobal.net" *your* address?



-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15548 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

On 6/28/2015 11:52 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-06-27 um 16:25:
> 
>> On 6/27/2015 8:49 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> [...]
>>> <http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=terms>
> [...]
>> Right.  SHOULD be yours and SHOULD be valid.  I'm not violating any T&C.
> 
> Did you really read it? SHOULD is only there because using the TLD
> ".invalid" is also accepted.
> 
> Furthermore:
> 
> "Using addresses and name space of other people without their consent is
> prohibited."
> 
> Is "jstucklex@attglobal.net" *your* address?
> 
> 
> 

Yup, but I'm not using the name space of anyone else.  It doesn't have
to be MY address - just no one else's.  So much for the psychotic troll.

You really need psychiatric help.  I hope you seek it.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15543 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:49:55 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Quote:
>
> Users of the news server news.eternal-september.org are obliged to abide
> by the following rules. Failure to do so will cause immediate
> termination of access rights without prior notice.
>
> * Sender Address
>
>   The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:"
>   SHOULD be yours (i.e. you should be entitled to use it) and SHOULD be
>   valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity). Using addresses
>   and name space of other people without their consent is prohibited.
>
> (unquote)
>
> So - to use the services of eternal-september.org it is *required* to
> use a valid sender address or the TLD ".invalid" according to RFC5537 by
> 2009(!) (<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5537.txt>) which replaced
> RFC1036 and SON-OF-RFC1036.

"should" != "must". Conventions of use of "may", "should", and "must"
are established in many RFC, including the elsewhere-mentioned
son-of-1036.

-- 
The Write Many, Read Never drive.  For those people that don't know
their system has a /dev/null already.
              -- Rik Steenwinkel, singing the praises of 8mm Exabytes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15546 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

Peter H. Coffin schrieb am 2015-06-28 um 05:14:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:49:55 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Quote:
>>
>> Users of the news server news.eternal-september.org are obliged to abide
>> by the following rules. Failure to do so will cause immediate
>> termination of access rights without prior notice.
>>
>> * Sender Address
>>
>>   The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:"
>>   SHOULD be yours (i.e. you should be entitled to use it) and SHOULD be
>>   valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity). Using addresses
>>   and name space of other people without their consent is prohibited.
>>
>> (unquote)
>>
>> So - to use the services of eternal-september.org it is *required* to
>> use a valid sender address or the TLD ".invalid" according to RFC5537 by
>> 2009(!) (<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5537.txt>) which replaced
>> RFC1036 and SON-OF-RFC1036.
> 
> "should" != "must". Conventions of use of "may", "should", and "must"
> are established in many RFC, including the elsewhere-mentioned
> son-of-1036.

I know.

See <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>:

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

I don't think, Mr. Stuckle did carefully weigh the full implications his
decisions.


-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15549 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

On 6/28/2015 11:54 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Peter H. Coffin schrieb am 2015-06-28 um 05:14:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:49:55 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Quote:
>>>
>>> Users of the news server news.eternal-september.org are obliged to abide
>>> by the following rules. Failure to do so will cause immediate
>>> termination of access rights without prior notice.
>>>
>>> * Sender Address
>>>
>>>   The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:"
>>>   SHOULD be yours (i.e. you should be entitled to use it) and SHOULD be
>>>   valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity). Using addresses
>>>   and name space of other people without their consent is prohibited.
>>>
>>> (unquote)
>>>
>>> So - to use the services of eternal-september.org it is *required* to
>>> use a valid sender address or the TLD ".invalid" according to RFC5537 by
>>> 2009(!) (<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5537.txt>) which replaced
>>> RFC1036 and SON-OF-RFC1036.
>>
>> "should" != "must". Conventions of use of "may", "should", and "must"
>> are established in many RFC, including the elsewhere-mentioned
>> son-of-1036.
> 
> I know. 
> 
> See <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>:
> 
> 3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
> 
> I don't think, Mr. Stuckle did carefully weigh the full implications his
> decisions.
> 
> 

You have no idea what I weighed.  You just jumped on me - like the
psychotic troll you are.

I really hope you get the psychiatric help you so desperately need.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15551 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

Am 2015-06-29 um 02:10 schrieb Jerry Stuckle:

> On 6/28/2015 11:54 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
[...]
>> See <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>:
>>
>> 3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>>    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>>    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>>    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
>>
>> I don't think, Mr. Stuckle did carefully weigh the full implications his
>> decisions.
>>
>>
> 
> You have no idea what I weighed.  You just jumped on me - like the
> psychotic troll you are.

JFTR: It was *you* claiming that nobody cares about the RFCs about the
requirements for usenet messages and it is *you* ignoring the
recommendations, not me.

-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15552 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

On 6/30/2015 3:54 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Am 2015-06-29 um 02:10 schrieb Jerry Stuckle:
> 
>> On 6/28/2015 11:54 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> [...]
>>> See <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>:
>>>
>>> 3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>>>    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>>>    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>>>    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
>>>
>>> I don't think, Mr. Stuckle did carefully weigh the full implications his
>>> decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You have no idea what I weighed.  You just jumped on me - like the
>> psychotic troll you are.
> 
> JFTR: It was *you* claiming that nobody cares about the RFCs about the
> requirements for usenet messages and it is *you* ignoring the
> recommendations, not me.
> 

I never said nobody cares about the RFCs about the requirements for
usenet messages.  You can't put words into my mouth.

But then nobody cares what a psychotic troll thinks, Arno.  Now why
don't you go running to your mommy and let the adults carry on discussions.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15553 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

Am 2015-06-30 um 14:45 schrieb Jerry Stuckle:

[...]
> But then nobody cares what a psychotic troll thinks, Arno.  Now why

It seems YOU do.


-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15554 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

On 6/30/2015 10:20 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Am 2015-06-30 um 14:45 schrieb Jerry Stuckle:
> 
> [...]
>> But then nobody cares what a psychotic troll thinks, Arno.  Now why
> 
> It seems YOU do.
> 
> 

Not a bit, Arno.  You flatter yourself too much.

Just because I respond to a psychotic troll doesn't mean I give a damn
about what you have to say.  It's very much for the benefit of others
who might look at this group and not know what you are.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15571 — Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

Am 2015-06-30 um 21:00 schrieb Jerry Stuckle:

> On 6/30/2015 10:20 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Am 2015-06-30 um 14:45 schrieb Jerry Stuckle:
>>
>> [...]
>>> But then nobody cares what a psychotic troll thinks, Arno.  Now why
>>
>> It seems YOU do.
>>
>>
> 
> Not a bit, Arno.  You flatter yourself too much.
> 
> Just because I respond to a psychotic troll doesn't mean I give a damn
> about what you have to say.  It's very much for the benefit of others
> who might look at this group and not know what you are.

At least others also learn how friendly and kind you are calling others
"psychotic trolls" and ask them to get psychiatric help and "go running
to your mommy and let the adults carry on discussions" etc.

I wonder who is the childish person here... the last time someone tried
(and did not succeed) to make me angry by saying "go running to your
mommy" to me was in primary school.

BTW: F'up to poster.

-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web