Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger

"Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <> Sat, 03 December 2011 05:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F67F11E8073 for <>; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 21:37:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.784
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.784 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.515, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XrLI9Lq2GQ5k for <>; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 21:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BECF11E8081 for <>; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 21:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bkar19 with SMTP id r19so83896bka.31 for <>; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 21:37:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2hX0QEdNkrjMDIwLS50mlxHeDpw7NhrU0lsbJjcT5Cg=; b=qbN9eIVfUppQln7E/pTfGmvbjMH72R18jA28KpAdgtIK19JddhxU1Y7n00Ts2Qn3Ry g28i/KCFgDOidEyw45y7wfH0fIr8vRIue189lyKnr1/UbbBwlv/qvJ9hu2BRy0Eupcrh 9o+aTcTCWiQ9Fnbbg3NL88g9At0+4lYq5cwKE=
Received: by with SMTP id hu18mr513077bkc.123.1322890675379; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 21:37:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id e8sm20263899bkd.7.2011. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 02 Dec 2011 21:37:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 07:38:48 +0200
From: "\"Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв )\"" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <032101cc9288$e3a06910$aae13b30$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Webfinger
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 05:37:59 -0000


The "Author's Addresses" section is not ironic but just an unfilled 
template in XML source, I guess.  Moreover, Webfinger as well as 
original finger are supposed to be means of retrieving information which 
is publicly available, and this is decided by the owner of such 
information.  "If you don't like it, don't use it" principle is very 
relevant here, and I don't see reasons to argue.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

24.11.2011 5:34, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Paul E. Jones wrote:
> There:
>     Suppose you meet somebody at a party and they provide you with their
>     email address.  After the party, you decide to visit your new
>     friend's blog to learn more about them.  How do you find it?  You
>     could search for your friend's name on the Internet or on various
>     social networking sites, but sometimes it is very hard to locate a
>     person or information about a person with merely an email address or
>     a name.
> I believe the technical term for that is "cyberstalking". What are you
> planning to do to ensure the draft properly addresses security, privacy,
> and netiquette issues? Right now the document seems to omit the reasons
> for why the finger protocol did not gain traction, which revolve around
> privacy and social engineering security issues, does not discuss neti-
> quette at all, just has a "if you don't like it, don't use it" remark
> in the Security Considerations, and has an ironic "Author's Addresses"
> section.