> On 09/06/2022 10:49 AM EDT John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> --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
It's pretty easy to say there is no evidence of how it works when you refuse to try it. As per our conversation a couple months back when I asked you about getting a 5xx response code added to your bis draft, I told you to send me a simple hello email to test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and follow the link in the reply.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
