[Tools-discuss] Re: Reaching RFC authors

Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Sun, 18 August 2024 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88B2C14F600 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2024 12:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MuxwqcmcRJvm for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2024 12:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drew.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B1B4C14F615 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2024 12:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:c1d6:55af:2ce0:e5b8]) (Authenticated sender: lurchi) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6508B721E2806; Sun, 18 Aug 2024 21:31:16 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51\))
From: Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <20240818191023.3E2A891FBE9C@ary.qy>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 21:31:15 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <17D074E1-3C89-4C5B-90FA-ABEBA1ADF65C@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <872CECC7-FB7D-4540-B432-8B01A179C654@lurchi.franken.de> <20240818191023.3E2A891FBE9C@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51)
Message-ID-Hash: ND4MQ3YN2V7RV4PGWUWJNWMJL4JGRQ5F
X-Message-ID-Hash: ND4MQ3YN2V7RV4PGWUWJNWMJL4JGRQ5F
X-MailFrom: michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tools-discuss.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: Reaching RFC authors
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/VjjaN8Olk0SLF_Y9NdXVbGjHxSA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tools-discuss-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tools-discuss-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tools-discuss-leave@ietf.org>

> On 18. Aug 2024, at 21:10, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> It appears that Michael Tuexen  <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> said:
>> is it intended that the authors of RFC n can be reached via the
>> email address rfcn@ietf.org <mailto:rfcn@ietf.org>, where n is the number of the RFC?
> 
> No.
OK. Why is this link used at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9260
when I click on the 'Email authors' button. If I click on it,
an e-mail with To address rfc9260@ietf.org <mailto:rfc9260@ietf.org> is generated, which
is rejected by the ietf.org <http://ietf.org/> server when sent.
This looks inconsistent to me...

Best regards
Michael
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> PS: We recently had a discussion related to this topic.  You can try the author
> addresses in the RFC, and in some cases where addresses have changed, you can find
> newer addresses by looking them up in the mail archive or datatracker.  In a few
> cases the RPC has newer addresses.
> 
> Addresses like that with a simple regular pattern would be scraped by spambots in
> about ten seconds and so would need spam filters so fierce that they'd reject a
> lot of real mail, too.