Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
email in From:
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Ivan Shmakov
Mar 24, 2013, 5:15:42 AM3/24/13
to
>>>>> cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> writes:
[Cross-posting to news:news.misc, and dropping
news:alt.free.newsservers from Followup-To:.]
[...]
> Jeff-Relf.Me is at bat-shit crazy as they come. He thinks NNTP from
> headers should have a website, not an email address.
And frankly, I tend to agree with that, in part. The email
address in From: currently serves no purpose: typically, it's
simply invalid. (Yet, it may just as well be a valid one, but
not that of the poster, although it's now an extreme rarity.)
Now that every other Usenet poster puts his or her own email in
the signature (in some cryptic form), I'd vote for making the
email part of the header optional, or abolishing it altogether.
> He thinks the RFCs should be changed to fit his world view.
Yes. But then, RFCs are constantly changing to meet /someone's/
world view.
> He meets the classic definition of insanity: He keeps on with the
> same rant, expecting different results each time.
I have no comments on this one.
[...]
--
FSF associate member #7257
[Cross-posting to news:news.misc, and dropping
news:alt.free.newsservers from Followup-To:.]
[...]
> Jeff-Relf.Me is at bat-shit crazy as they come. He thinks NNTP from
> headers should have a website, not an email address.
And frankly, I tend to agree with that, in part. The email
address in From: currently serves no purpose: typically, it's
simply invalid. (Yet, it may just as well be a valid one, but
not that of the poster, although it's now an extreme rarity.)
Now that every other Usenet poster puts his or her own email in
the signature (in some cryptic form), I'd vote for making the
email part of the header optional, or abolishing it altogether.
> He thinks the RFCs should be changed to fit his world view.
Yes. But then, RFCs are constantly changing to meet /someone's/
world view.
> He meets the classic definition of insanity: He keeps on with the
> same rant, expecting different results each time.
I have no comments on this one.
[...]
--
FSF associate member #7257
cipher
Mar 24, 2013, 7:43:22 AM3/24/13
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:15:42 +0000, Ivan Shmakov Inscribed upon the Golden
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
>>>>>> cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> writes:
>
> [Cross-posting to news:news.misc, and dropping
> news:alt.free.newsservers from Followup-To:.]
>
> [...]
>
> > Jeff-Relf.Me is at bat-shit crazy as they come. He thinks NNTP from
> > headers should have a website, not an email address.
>
> And frankly, I tend to agree with that, in part. The email
> address in From: currently serves no purpose: typically, it's
> simply invalid. (Yet, it may just as well be a valid one, but
> not that of the poster, although it's now an extreme rarity.)
Neither would a URL. Also, with URLs there is serious abuse potential.
Why does Relf think that A) everyone has a web site and B) wants to
broadcast it?
If his vision were implemented and you didn't have a web site, what would
you do?
Munge a URL just to make the software work?
His fascination with some weird-assed fusion of NNTP and HTML is deranged.
He can put his URL in his sig if he wishes.
And he doesn't address the issue of posters with no URL to share.
In his view you must have one. Obsession...
> Now that every other Usenet poster puts his or her own email in
> the signature (in some cryptic form), I'd vote for making the
> email part of the header optional, or abolishing it altogether.
Yes, sounds reasonable. But Relf doesn't want options, he wants to
change it to his way.
> > He thinks the RFCs should be changed to fit his world view.
>
> Yes. But then, RFCs are constantly changing to meet /someone's/
> world view.
I thank my Upright Walking God everyday that it is not his...
And likely will never be...
> > He meets the classic definition of insanity: He keeps on with the
> > same rant, expecting different results each time.
>
> I have no comments on this one.
>
> [...]
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)\ ( ) /( Cipher/Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
)-(0^^0)-( Bungmunch U./AHM Memorial Institute of F@x0r1n6/Dean
)/ \\// \( Colonel/1st Virginia Volunteers/CeSium Brigade
(oo) Registered Linux User #556617
/ ~~ \ Empire of APDD/#6-5p07/VLNOC Cohort #1407
o@o o@o Keeper of the alt.CeSium FAQ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
>>>>>> cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> writes:
>
> [Cross-posting to news:news.misc, and dropping
> news:alt.free.newsservers from Followup-To:.]
>
> [...]
>
> > Jeff-Relf.Me is at bat-shit crazy as they come. He thinks NNTP from
> > headers should have a website, not an email address.
>
> And frankly, I tend to agree with that, in part. The email
> address in From: currently serves no purpose: typically, it's
> simply invalid. (Yet, it may just as well be a valid one, but
> not that of the poster, although it's now an extreme rarity.)
Why does Relf think that A) everyone has a web site and B) wants to
broadcast it?
If his vision were implemented and you didn't have a web site, what would
you do?
Munge a URL just to make the software work?
His fascination with some weird-assed fusion of NNTP and HTML is deranged.
He can put his URL in his sig if he wishes.
And he doesn't address the issue of posters with no URL to share.
In his view you must have one. Obsession...
> Now that every other Usenet poster puts his or her own email in
> the signature (in some cryptic form), I'd vote for making the
> email part of the header optional, or abolishing it altogether.
change it to his way.
> > He thinks the RFCs should be changed to fit his world view.
>
> Yes. But then, RFCs are constantly changing to meet /someone's/
> world view.
And likely will never be...
> > He meets the classic definition of insanity: He keeps on with the
> > same rant, expecting different results each time.
>
> I have no comments on this one.
>
> [...]
--
)\ ( ) /( Cipher/Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
)-(0^^0)-( Bungmunch U./AHM Memorial Institute of F@x0r1n6/Dean
)/ \\// \( Colonel/1st Virginia Volunteers/CeSium Brigade
(oo) Registered Linux User #556617
/ ~~ \ Empire of APDD/#6-5p07/VLNOC Cohort #1407
o@o o@o Keeper of the alt.CeSium FAQ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ivan Shmakov
Mar 27, 2013, 5:03:56 AM3/27/13
to
>>>>> cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov Inscribed upon the Golden Tablets of Usenet thusly:
>>>>> cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> writes:
>>> He thinks NNTP from headers should have a website, not an email
>>> address.
>> And frankly, I tend to agree with that, in part. The email address
>> in From: currently serves no purpose: typically, it's simply
>> invalid. (Yet, it may just as well be a valid one, but not that of
>> the poster, although it's now an extreme rarity.)
> Neither would a URL.
I've said /in part./ I don't quite support the "URI idea,"
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov Inscribed upon the Golden Tablets of Usenet thusly:
>>>>> cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> writes:
>>> He thinks NNTP from headers should have a website, not an email
>>> address.
>> And frankly, I tend to agree with that, in part. The email address
>> in From: currently serves no purpose: typically, it's simply
>> invalid. (Yet, it may just as well be a valid one, but not that of
>> the poster, although it's now an extreme rarity.)
> Neither would a URL.
either.
> Also, with URLs there is serious abuse potential.
> Why does Relf think that A) everyone has a web site and B) wants to
> broadcast it?
flexibility, as URI can be used to designate a Web site (http:
or https: URI), an XMPP address (xmpp:), a phone number
(tel: URI), or what not.
> If his vision were implemented and you didn't have a web site, what
> would you do? Munge a URL just to make the software work?
Shmuel Metz
Mar 29, 2013, 6:49:12 PM3/29/13
to
In <87k3ox9n...@violet.siamics.net>, on 03/24/2013
existing RFC's.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
at 09:15 AM, Ivan Shmakov <onei...@gmail.com> said:
> Yes. But then, RFCs are constantly changing to meet /someone's/
> world view.
Normally, however, not the world views of people who blatantly ignore
> Yes. But then, RFCs are constantly changing to meet /someone's/
> world view.
existing RFC's.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
0 new messages