Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages

From	Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.php
Subject	Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages
Date	2015-06-27 14:49 +0200
Message-ID	<558E9BF3.3000004@arnowelzel.de> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <mmifjb$eie$1@dont-email.me> <558D0B9F.5050101@arnowelzel.de> <mmjajj$sgm$1@dont-email.me> <558D3C13.3040101@arnowelzel.de> <mmk5k4$6rr$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

(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

Thread

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

csiph-web