Re: sob@xxxxxxxxxxx is not long for the world

["touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 14, 2024, at 1:36 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 14/08/2024 21:28, Scott O. Bradner wrote:

But the university values process over history (or at least the
automaton that is doing this does)

That's a shame. I wish people and organisations had a bit more
clue that supposed efficiency is not everything. You'd almost
expect universities to be good at that;-)

Bad job Harvard.

Although I appreciate the impact this has to our RFCs, we all experience this (touch@xxxxxxx is no more as well), though perhaps not to the same degree.

I’ll step in here to defend Harvard’s decision; having an email available to someone who no longer holds an official position is a significant legal risk.

Emails, URLs, and even RFC numbers change (remember back when TCP was “always” RFC793?). Search engines mitigate this problem, as would (preferably) a bounce message from Harvard providing the next known email, at least for a while.

Joe