🚀 go-pugleaf

kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
 >Which is all why some basically meaningless "ident" is a reasonable
 >idea - if there's any (particular) meaning there then they aren't
 >all essentially equal, and people will want some particular one over
 >others.  With random names (even though they're not nice) there should
 >not be any particular reason to prefer one over another - some individuals
 >may prefer one, some another, but in general they should all be roughly
 >equal.

I think there is some merit here, from an administrative point of
view.  However, I believe that the address should contain some kind
of useful mnemonic (whoever requests the address should know what
constitutes "useful").

An address like "F76xm42gZ@priv.au" means absolutely nothing to
anyone.  Until the use of Organization:, nslookup, mail aliasing, etc.
is commonplace, I think the idea of meaningless names should be
ditched.  It sounds like a lot less work for one person, and a hell
of a lot more work for everyone else.

Also, isn't "priv.au" a slight misnomer?  Can't think of any alternatives,
though.


--
 Iain Sinclair    axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au
 $@0N0G(J $@?<9HNn(J