[rfc-i] this email stuff, RFC contact addresses
johnl at taugh.com
Sun Sep 18 18:48:21 PDT 2011
I have to say I'm chronically amazed at people in the IETF community
whose understanding of e-mail seems to be frozen in about 1998. It's
kind of like getting complaints that some routing change is impossible
because RIP can't handle it.
>1) a spammer now knows the future email address of all RFC authors
>without doing the work of scraping the RFC text
The idea that a spammer would go to special effort to predict a few
thousand addresses, or that they're likely to go to any effort beyond
scraping easily visible addresses is beyond silly. The minimum
quantum of spam list is a million addresses. I realize that we are
all very important people here, but really, they don't care.
>If the IETF updates rfc1810 at ietf.org to point to
>touch at newaddress.example.com, then they have a way to reach me again.
Well, yes, providing people a way to contact you is the idea.
Fortunately, spam filtering has come a long way since 1998, and I see
no reason to believe that a few more forwarding addresses make an
appreciable difference to one's spam load.
> Do we really need to test that in a court?
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be most interested to know
what your legal theory is, preferably with citations to statutes and
cases. To help you get started, here's a handy database of
spam-related law we're building with the Cornell Law School:
More information about the rfc-interest