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
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?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain | Democracy is three wolve
10 matches
Mail list logo
