Closed
Bug 29270
Opened 25 years ago
Closed 23 years ago
Allow spambot-protected e-mail address in News
Categories
(SeaMonkey :: MailNews: Account Configuration, defect, P3)
SeaMonkey
MailNews: Account Configuration
Tracking
(Not tracked)
VERIFIED
WONTFIX
People
(Reporter: jdaly, Assigned: asa)
References
Details
right now the ui prevents me from using an invalid email address for news (like
jdaly at ixl dot com). this is something that i would want to use, especially
for newsgroups to prevent spam backlash! perhaps when the address is for news,
prompt the user that the address is invalid, are they sure they want to use it?
Comment 1•25 years ago
|
||
no, we will not do this. You should pick a different method to avoid spam, like
myname.nospam@blah.com. One of the GNKSA guidelines is that users be required to
enter a "valid" email address in the form user@host...
Entering an invalid e-mail address can break news servers, etc.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•25 years ago
|
||
actually, i found that after using the 'account wizard', when using the account
configuration preferences normally, one is able to enter invalid email
addresses (just like 'jdaly at ixl dot com') -- should this be prevented as
well then?
Comment 3•25 years ago
|
||
yep, I have a bug against me somewhere on that.
Comment 5•25 years ago
|
||
that's the one!
That's it, I'm not going to do to bugzilla queries anymore! I'm just going to
ask you lisa, you're faster...:)
I will mark this verified won't fix. I've added this bug's case to the other
bug report.
And, I'm glad that I'm faster than a bugzilla query :-)
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Ridiculous. Reopening and marking my version of this bug a dup.
GNKSA requirements are not more important than user satisfaction. If I can't use
my spam-proofed e-mail in the Mozilla newsreader I'll go do it in Outlook, just
like any other user would. This enforcement doesn't do anything except drive
users away to other newsreaders.
Comment 9•23 years ago
|
||
[Removing nsCatFood keyword, since Skewer isn't a Netscape employee]
I agree this should be wontfix. See also bug 18344: you could set your e-mail
address as `SkewerMZ@skewer100.invalid', then include human-readable
instructions to replace `invalid' with `cjb.net'.
Keywords: nsCatFood
Comment 10•23 years ago
|
||
> GNKSA requirements are not more important than user satisfaction.
GNKSA was not made by an industry giant.
From bug 3744:
> MailNews will never be able
> to stop spammers from entering fake e-mail addresses - it just forces them to
> format them properly.
We don't try to stop spammers. I assume that their use their own, specialized
tools anyway.
Since
- GNKSA-compliance is a major goal that most people (who are involved in the
Mozilla development) agree with and
- this bug contradicts bug 3744, which is a GNKSA requirement,
marking WONTFIX ("Should not be fixed") again.
If this is 4xp, then 4.x was wrong IMO. We don't need to reproduce 4.x bugs.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago → 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Comment 11•23 years ago
|
||
I should be fair and argue with more than just "It's a SGNKSA-requirement."
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/gnksa.txt>, section 12 is relevant here. Some
quotes:
> When creating either a new article or a followup, the software MUST
> initialize the "From: " header to a syntactically valid e-mail address
[...]
> If the software is unable to create such an address -- maybe because it
> was built with incorrect configuration parameters, or some essential
> parameter is unavailable at runtime -- then it MUST NOT allow posting at
> all, unless it can obtain a syntactically valid e-mail address from the user.
I am usually for giving the user the full control, not to regliment him. So, in
this case, we could display a warning dialog, if we detect an invalid email
address in the Account Manager/Wizard, as suggested in the dup bug. But GNKSA
seems to disallow that specifically ("If [...] incorrect configuration [...]
then it MUST NOT allow posting").
Considering the rationale they give, their position makes some sense:
> Rationale: Mail and news transport systems and user agents, gateways and
> processing software may choke on syntactically invalid headers.
I think that many new users are not aware of what they are doing when they enter
an invalid address. E.g. who knows what happens when a silly spambot tries to
mail "you at example com".
To summarize, I don't have sufficient arguments to break with GNKSA, so we
should err on the side of GNKSA compliance.
To reopen this, we will have to present solid reason why using an invalid
address is better than, e.g., using <user.REMOVETHIS@example.com> (where both
<user.REMOVETHIS@exmaple.com> and <user@example.com> are functional addresses,
but the latter might be read more often).
Comment 12•23 years ago
|
||
This is NOT about meeting ANY requirement. This is about delivering a product
which does NOT have limitations which aren't present in other products (e.g.
Outlook Express)! No limitation is too small to cause someone to change their
newsreader. Until you can provide something BETTER than a requirement, such as
EVIDENCE of news servers breaking on an e-mail address such as <user at example
dot com>, I won't be satisfied. This is a serious user satisfaction issue and
cannot be ignored. <user.REMOVETHIS@example.com> is MUCH more invalid than <user
at example dot com> and the latter should be encouraged at any cost. The goal of
spam protection is to format your e-mail address in a way that only a human
could use it. Humans won't know how to handle an address like
<user.REMOVETHIS@example.com> while many e-mail collectors are programmed to
handle addresses like this. Meanwhile, e-mail collectors cannot understand <user
at example dot com> and humans can easily change this to a real e-mail address.
Haven't you ever heard of, "The customer is always right"?
Comment 13•23 years ago
|
||
> This is NOT about meeting ANY requirement.
There are countless requirements a product must meet. For example, standards
compliance is such a requirement, and one that Mozilla holds up (actually, it is
probably the number one goal).
GNKSA is the "standard" for etikette in newsreaders.
> This is about delivering a product
> which does NOT have limitations which aren't present in other products
If MSIE implements "cool" HTML-feature A, say the <blink> tag, and the HTML
standard explicitly disallows it, it probably won't get into Mozilla either (at
most anyhow hidden).
(You know that you can enter any address you like in prefs.js, don't you?)
> Until you can provide something BETTER than a requirement, such as
> EVIDENCE of news servers breaking on an e-mail address such as <user at
> example dot com>, I won't be satisfied.
GNKSA is well-respected. I has undergone a long process. If you are interested
in the details of the rationale (beyond what I cited), lookup the relevant
discussion at <http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/#maillist>.
One of the advantages of standards is that you donÄt have to argue about each
point everywhere each time.
*You* argue against the accepted standard. *You* have to provide proof that the
standard is wrong.
> <user.REMOVETHIS@example.com> is MUCH more invalid than <user
> at example dot com> and the latter should be encouraged at any cost.
Please cite a generally accepted Usenet FAQ (e.g. from <news:news.answers>)
stating that. I know that in the normal German Usenet, faked addresses are
likely to get you flamed.
> Haven't you ever heard of, "The customer is always right"?
But I am also a "customer", and I disagree with you, because <user at example
dot com>
- is completely invalid
- is hard for me to reply to.
Comment 14•23 years ago
|
||
mpt: nsCatFood is a nomination keyword. Netscape's job is to agree (nsCatFood+)
or disagree (nsCatFood-) with the keyword.
>There are countless requirements a product must meet. For example, standards
>compliance is such a requirement, and one that Mozilla holds up (actually, it
>is probably the number one goal).
Standards are not and never were a requirement. The last time I checked,
software developers were free to write software in a way that pleases their
customers and not necessarily satisfy the whims of these "standards" authors.
When a standard is considered unreasonable and is expected to cause user
satisfaction issues, a reasonable solution is to make in an option, either a
pref or an "Are you sure?" box. In this case such a confirmation eliminates the
accidental use of invalid e-mail addresses.
I agree that Mozilla should make every attempt to meet some of these suggestions
(such as displaying all header information, separating sigs properly, removing
sigs from replies, and wrapping reasonably). However this one forces an
unreasonable assumption on the user and prevents him from protecting his e-mail
address from spambots in a logical manner.
>If MSIE implements "cool" HTML-feature A, say the <blink> tag, and the HTML
>standard explicitly disallows it, it probably won't get into Mozilla either (at
>most anyhow hidden).
Very bad example. I believe it is Netscape who invented BLINK, and bugs
suggesting the removal of this irritating feature are being passed off as RFE's.
So apparently user satisfaction is a low priority in both cases.
>>Until you can provide something BETTER than a requirement, such as
>>EVIDENCE of news servers breaking on an e-mail address such as <user at
>>example dot com>, I won't be satisfied.
>[No evidence was provided here.]
>One of the advantages of standards is that you donÄt [sic] have to argue about
>each point everywhere each time.
Another case where you don't understand the consequences of blindly accepting
any standard that comes flying along.
>Please cite a generally accepted Usenet FAQ (e.g. from <news:news.answers>)
>stating that. I know that in the normal German Usenet, faked addresses are
>likely to get you flamed.
Gladly (although you will probably pass off anything that doesn't support your
argument as not being "generally accepted"):
<http://www.ecofuture.org/jmnews.html#hide>
> Haven't you ever heard of, "The customer is always right"?
>But I am also a "customer", and I disagree with you, because
><user at example dot com>
>- is completely invalid
As formatted, yes (no different from <user.REMOVETHIS@example.com>. However
anyone with a sense of logic and general literacy should be able to understand
that this e-mail address should be changed to <user@example.com>.
>- is hard for me to reply to.
(no comment)
Comment 15•23 years ago
|
||
> > standards compliance is such a requirement, and one that Mozilla holds
> > up (actually, it is probably the number one goal).
> Standards are not and never were a requirement.
Wrong, see above. Check newsgroups, early webpages on www.mozilla.org etc., ask
people on IRC, if you don't believe me.
> The last time I checked,
> software developers were free to write software in a way that pleases their
> customers and not necessarily satisfy the whims of these "standards" authors.
Speaks for itself.
> > Please cite a generally accepted Usenet FAQ (e.g. from <news:news.answers>)
> > stating that.
> Gladly (although you will probably pass off anything that doesn't support your
> argument as not being "generally accepted"):
> <http://www.ecofuture.org/jmnews.html#hide>
Whereis the proof that it's generally accepted in the Usenet community? In fact,
it makes some fatal errors, like suggesting to replace com with org.
Search the newsgroup news.answers and/or ask in news.newusers.questions for a
Usenet netiquette/FAQ.
I found an "Address Munging FAQ" there. Note that it assumes that you want to
mung your address, something that many people disagree with in the first place.
From the "good" ways it mentions for munging, only one
("yourname(AT)example(DOT)com") would not be possible. All others are
syntactically valid.
Maybe, we could include the most important "DON'T"s in our error message.
> >- is completely invalid
> As formatted, yes (no different from <user.REMOVETHIS@example.com>.
No. <user.REMOVETHIS@example.com> is a syntactically completely valid email
address, and it could and *should* even exist.
Comment 16•23 years ago
|
||
Asa: this bug is for you to arbitrate. The suggestion is CLOSED WONTFIX. Alecf
certainly has no need for this spam, but if he likes he can cc himself or
reassign. Sorry to disturb you.
Assignee: alecf → asa
Status: REOPENED → NEW
Comment 17•23 years ago
|
||
I have no idea why I've been CCed, but:
You can have syntactically valid spambot-protected email addresses, so this bug,
as titled, is WORKSFORME. The fact that one particular way of spamproofing isn't
allowed is not, or shouldn't be, a big deal.
Gerv
Updated•23 years ago
|
QA Contact: lchiang → stephend
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•23 years ago
|
||
wontfix.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago → 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
wheeee!
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Updated•20 years ago
|
Product: Browser → Seamonkey
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•