On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:04:57 -0800
Stephen Hansen wrote:
> It may or may not be in violation of the RFCs, but the modern reality of the
> internet makes certain "rules" of the RFC's meaningless.
They aren't meaningless. They also aren't "rules", a term that I did
not use. The Internet is an ana
Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 01/16/10 19:56, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Paul Rubin writes:
>>
>>> I'd think whoever registered that domain would have known what they
>>> were getting into when they registered it. Same with "example.com" and
>>> so forth.
>> Which doesn't make it any more appropriate to act as t
On 01/16/10 19:56, Ben Finney wrote:
> Paul Rubin writes:
>
>> I'd think whoever registered that domain would have known what they
>> were getting into when they registered it. Same with "example.com" and
>> so forth.
>
> Which doesn't make it any more appropriate to act as though you have
> fre
Ben Finney writes:
> Paul Rubin writes:
>
> > I'd think whoever registered that domain would have known what they
> > were getting into when they registered it. Same with "example.com" and
> > so forth.
>
> Which doesn't make it any more appropriate to act as though you have
> free rein in a dom
Paul Rubin writes:
> I'd think whoever registered that domain would have known what they
> were getting into when they registered it. Same with "example.com" and
> so forth.
Which doesn't make it any more appropriate to act as though you have
free rein in a domain registered to someone else.
Es
Ben Finney writes:
>> Does anyone else think that that behaviour is just rude, not to
>> mention in violation of the RFCs?
>
> Yes, it violates RFCs. It also ignores the fact that the domain is
> currently registered until 2010-08-03, and is therefore not available
> for anyone else's use, unless
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" writes:
> Does anyone else think that that behaviour is just rude, not to
> mention in violation of the RFCs?
Yes, it violates RFCs. It also ignores the fact that the domain is
currently registered until 2010-08-03, and is therefore not available
for anyone else's use, unless
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:13 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> Damn! I missed the @invalid.com in the address. I'm not sure why I
> just didn't do this before but @invalid.com just went into my
> blacklist.
>
> Does anyone else think that that behaviour is just rude, not to mention
> in violation
* D'Arcy J.M. Cain:
Damn! I missed the @invalid.com in the address. I'm not sure why I
just didn't do this before but @invalid.com just went into my
blacklist.
Does anyone else think that that behaviour is just rude, not to mention
in violation of the RFCs?
In RFC violation yes.
To saf
