--On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 07:59 -0400 Timothy Mcsweeney
<tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> And it gets rid of spam and robo calls.
Tim,
No evidence of that. Experience with various email header
fields and special responses indicates that most of the world,
especially the spammers and robots, will pay no attention and
might even take a response as evidence of a valid, responding,
address. On the URI side of things, it works at all only if
implemented and works completely ("gets rid of") only if almost
universally implemented. You have not offered much (any?)
evidence that would happen.
So, bottom line, Larry's note notwithstanding:
(1) drop# as a scheme name violates the specifications in 3986,
including parts of those specifications that were, IIR, enforced
to force URNs out of a direction that there was otherwise some
evidence of consensus (among those who wanted effective URNs,
not the community as a whole) they should go... specifically
that anything following "#" had to be treated as a fragment as
3986 defines fragments and not syntax that could be interpreted
as part of the URI.
(2) There is no evidence, at least so far, that major browsers,
web servers, or email systems would support this. That is
independent of whether the scheme name were "drop", "drop#", or
something else. Normally, that consideration might not count
for registration, but, when you make a sweeping assertion like
"gets rid of..." as a significant justification, it seems to me
to come into play.
(3) If "drop#" were allowed, we'd have to spend time and energy,
not only reconciling that with 3986 but sorting out whether it
had any relationship to a possible future attempt to use "drop"
as a (more conventional) scheme name, e.g., whether the latter
would be barred or treated as a completely separate string. The
latter would almost certainly cause confusion, perhaps being put
forward (or just used) maliciously by precisely the actors
against whom you are trying to push back.
(4) None of the above has anything to do with whether "http" is,
or could be, a domain name (or domain name label), much less
with whether "drop#" could be (it cannot -- see the syntax rules
in RFC 1035).
Recommendation from someone who is sympathetic with what you are
trying to do (whether I think it would accomplish much or not):
Drop (sic) the "drop#" idea. Move toward registering "drop",
"dropno", "dropnumb", "dropnumber" or something similar. Then,
and most important, pursue the concept, not the name. If you
need the particular string/ name/ brand for this to succeed in
any substantial way, it almost certainly won't.
best,
john
