🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6pisro$np$1@machaut.medieval.org>,
	Todd Michel McComb <mccomb@medieval.org> wrote:
|
| In article <6pishi$t69$1@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
| 	  Kim DeVaughn <kimdv@best.com> wrote:
| >
| >Even if some form of "address authentication" is adopted, it will
| >take years before such a thing is in general use net.wide, if ever.
|
| Sure, there will be rogue sites, although the plan is to put it in
| the transport, so the posts won't leave the little rogue subnets.
| The major news sites upgrade their transports fairly quickly now...
| it'll happen pretty fast, once it goes.

What "plan" are you speaking of?

The "work in progress" known as "Grandson of 1036" only says:

>5.2. From
>
>          [...]
>
>          All mailboxes in the From-content field MUST either belong to the
>          posters(s) of the article ( or the poster(s) are authorized by
>          the owners to use the mailboxes) or end in the top level
>          domain of ".invalid".

but says nothing about "authentication" that I found in my (admittedly quick)
perusal of it.

OTOH, it does mention "authentication" of group control messages, but defers
that as TBD, so I would expect it would do something similar for address
authentication, if that were being contemplated.


Not that I think that "authentication" is necessarily a bad idea, but it
doesn't seem very workable given today's volume of traffic, for performance
reasons.

There is also the issue of dealing with "anonymous" posting ability, for
which there are *some* legitimate uses.

Such issues aside, I still maintain that any such change to existing usenet
*practices* would take place extremely slowly, if history is anything to
go by.

/kim  (who has never used a munged address)

================================================
"Fast, good, cheap.  Pick any two."    --Unknown