John C Klensin wrote: > > 1) Spam: apparently valid email addresses in an RFC are widely > > believed to have been harvested and included in Spam lists. > > The domain may receive spam at mailboxes other than the one > > used in the example email address, if the domain name is used > > in common name or brute force attacks. > > Please note that a careful reading of this paragraph would > either ban or discourage the appearance of author email > addresses in RFCs. Yet such addresses have been a firm > requirement for many years (if I recall, since before there was > an IETF). Questions: > > (i) Does the IESG intend to change the requirement for > email addresses? BTW, http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt does not absolutely require including an email address (if you give some other contact method, such as postal address or telephone number), and there are RFCs that don't include it (e.g RFC 3718 from 2004; perhaps others exist, too). > (ii) Does the IESG believe that the appearance of a > domain name in an email address in an example is somehow > more harmful or likely to draw the attention of spammers > than one in an "Author's Address" section? If not, > could you explain your reasoning? If you're an author, you have presumably given your permission to being listed in the Author's Address section, and can choose what address to put there. IMHO the crux of the proposed text is that since using email addresses (and domains, etc.) belonging to someone else can potentially cause harm (although usually not very serious), it's better if the owner of the address (instead of IESG) decides whether the potential harm is acceptable or not -- and this should be opt-in (instead of assuming that lack of complaints means its OK). (There may be exceptional cases when something else needs to be done, though.) Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf