[Scspamcop] Re: Faux addresses:

[Twayne]

> Twayne wrote:

Don't take offense at any of this; I'm simply a more direct person than 
most are.  I mean no disrespect to  any dummies, err, I mean, you [:^). 
And I say that affectionately, believe me; I've read your posts with 
interest for years now.  Remember the time you told me apologizing 
wouldn't get me back into your good graces?  Yeah, that was awhile ago. 
I only apologize when I'm wrong or have wronged someone else.

>>> Tim McGraw wrote:
>>>> Also, unless you actually own and/or control the domain guy.com you
>>>> should not be posting a fake user name using that domain.
>>>
>>> But I think it's OK to be geeky at guy.invalid.com

Can't resist.  Look up "invalid" in the dictionary.  Notice both common 
and less common meanings and usages.  I happen to be an invalid 
(IN-val-id), although the word has fallen out of favor in the last 
couple decades.  So I might be an invalid, but that doesn't mean I am 
in-VAL-id.

>>
>>
>> What's wrong with using Spamcop's suggested name?
>
> At the present time, there is nothing (much) wrong with it, especially
> since it has been suggested various places.  But conceptually, it is
> not as good an idea as using an invalid name for two reasons.  -1- it
> the domainname resolves and -2- things can change in the future.

Make up your mind; is there something wrong with it, or not?

Conceptually, it is a fine idea and, as provided by spamcop and 
instructed by spamcop and even in one place encouraged by spamcop, there 
is nothing wrong with it.  BTW, It's no longer nobody at spamcop.net last I 
knew, but I'll recheck on that one later.  I think devnull is still in 
the latest suggestion.  It is a concept dreamed up by spamcop, and made 
allowance for by spamcop as are the thousands of other names offered up 
by various web sites.

1.  Yes it resolves.  And yes it takes a few seconds of time should it 
ever get used, which is maybe a couple of %age points of the time at the 
very most.  It is negligible compared to spam or especially when it 
might be a legitimate address.
2.  Coitinly!  So do I, and so will I, and so will you.  Everything 
changes.

How about ... me@¢>z.ocm ??

>
>> Or one of the many
>> others offered for public use such as, say, heypete.com, assuming
>> he's still around here.  Lots of other sites provide usable names
>> for the purpose too.  Personally I just use spamcop's suggestion.
>
> First, there's the resolution issue.  When you post a bogus addy with
> a resolvable domainname, it moves along in the system until it gets
> to the spamcop.net MX.  That is an unnecessary usage of the dns.
> Here's the difference between an invalid name and a valid one:

...
>
> ster.invalid
> That does not appear to be a valid IP address. Please check and try
> again.
>
> That is no resource usage.

By your own reasoning, that's today; how about tomorrow?  I think your'e 
splitting hairs unnecessarily here for the sake of arguement, to be 
honest.  It's like worrying about the sliver in your finger but not the 
2 inch board that your table saw just kicked back and shot through your 
chest.

>
> Second, there's the changing times issue.  Over the years certain
> domains have offered up a particular user at domain to be used for such
> as bogus From in newsgroups or whatever.  However, over time, the
> owner of the domain and how the username was being handled changed,
> and the new domainname owner has to deal with the 'traffic' which is
> coming to a domainname which no longer belongs to the owner who gave
> free use of some username.  That puts unnecessary demands on the new
> users server.

Caveat Emptor.  If/when I leave spamcop, or spamcop bites the big one, 
I'll no longer obviously be using its address either.  There simply can 
be no future guarantee, since we're splitting hairs, that any given mix 
of characters will not be used in the future for a tld or otherwise.

>
> All in all, it would be better to use an invalid domainname than to
> use nobody at spamcop.net IMO notwithstanding the recommendations in the
> faq and elsewhere.

No problem, you're certainly entiitled to your opinion and there is 
nothing inherently wrong with it as far as I'm concerned.  But the 
splitting hairs stuff says that an "invalid domainname" today may or may 
not be tomorrow.
   I can toss out a few e-mails and watch for the bounces and decide I 
have an invalid domainname.  But to use that name is certainly folly in 
most instances.  I simply think it's better to use an intended, 
advertised, available IP created for the purpose than it is to take a 
chance on it becoming a real and functional IP in the future.
   There are also some interesting things that can come about when you 
consider the ipv6(sp?) circumstances, too.  In most circumstances in 4, 
.invalid will become .inv for transmission, or .inva as I've seen in 
some cases just recently.  The  .inv could well stand for a lot of 
things other than invalid, and appear in use sooner rather than later.

So, let's agree to disagree if you must, but let's also  not split hairs 
that finely; it sends the point of diminishing returns into light-speed 
arrivals IMO.
   I am far from a guru in these things but, again IMO, when one does 
split hairs, they need to make detailed comments about what is 
acceptable vs the "norm" of intended-for-the-purpose IPs.

'nuff said; time for dinner.

Twayne




-- 
-- 
Regards,

Twayne

Open Office isn't just for wimps anymore;
OOo is a GREAT MS Office replacement
www.openoffice.org