R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> > It's not a "problem" and it *is* "a good thing",
>
> Nope, not by long shot.
>
> > it's just not meant to provide protection against spam.
>
> It should also not be ment as an open invitation to a bad actor. Which, in
> the form you are describing it, it definitily is.

Sigh! Read the above sentence again. It's *not meant to* prevent
actions from a bad actor, so it doesn't. Read my - snipped (sigh!) -
lawn mowing analogy.

For a bad actor, there's zero difference between an address with or
without a +<tag>.

> So thank you, but you've made clear that if its implemented that way its
> absolute garbage and I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

That's what I suggested, but you also snipped.

> > Nope. For MSPs who handle plus-addressing - i.e. in this case
> > Fastmail - the mail will *not* be delivered to username@domain.tld's
> > *Inbox*, but to the *folder* 'hiking'. That's the whole point of
> > plus-addressing.
>
> So, you first need to set up the correct folders on the email hosts machine,
> and only than you can give out a "+ address that refers to it ? Thats
> bullshit. It would make the whole thing absolutily *zero* better than
> creating a standard email alias.

Hmmm!? Did anyone say it was better? I don't think so. Someone said it
is an alternative, but that someone's comments get snipped and ignored.

BTW, I don't know if servers need folders to be set up beforehand.
Maybe it's automatic. Maybe it's not needed for POP.

> But, maybe I misunderstood what you said there. In that case, please do
> explain a bit more.

Yes, you misunderstood most if not all of what I said. I re-explained
some more above. But I'm getting tired of it, especially because you're
(silently) snipping my comments (and apparently not understanding them).

Frank,

> Sigh! Read the above sentence again.

You are as daft as someone suggesting to remove all doorlocks because it
makes it easy for paramedics to gain entry to a house in an emergency.

It *sounds* like a good idea, but anyone with just an average intelligence
will rather quickly figure out why its not.

Yes, I understand that you are saying the "+" thingy was thought of while
(purposely?) ignoring the existence of bad actors. You seem to find that
quite normal. I don't.

> For a bad actor, there's zero difference between an address with
> or without a +<tag>.

Now its my time to say "Sigh!" ? It is exactly why that that +<tag> should
*not* be used as fastmail has implemented it. Its brain-dead stupid. Maybe
even criminally so.

> That's what I suggested, but you also snipped.

You did ? Than you will have no problem to quote it.

> Hmmm!? Did anyone say it was better? I don't think so. Someone said
> it is an alternative,

And I challenged that. For reasons I have mentioned a few times now, and
have been waved away as not important.

> but that someone's comments get snipped and ignored.

That ignoring seems to be going two ways ...

> Yes, you misunderstood most if not all of what I said. I re-explained
> some more above.

Golly miss molly, I've tried to explain my side of the story a few times
now, and have not gotten any response to it, other than being waved away.

> But I'm getting tired of it, especially because you're (silently)
> snipping my comments (and apparently not understanding them).

Be my guest and quote those and mention (explain?) how they are relevant.

A warning though : I've just had a lengthy exchange (won't call it a
conversation) with a "knight of claim-a-lot". One of his rather obvious
"tricks" was to pretty-much claim same thing you do here. When he got
invited to quote those parts and explain how they where relevant he refused.
Time and time again. I hope you're not trying to play a similar game here.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> > Sigh! Read the above sentence again.
>
> You are as daft
....
> but anyone with just an average intelligence

Easy does it!

That you clearly do not understand what is and is not the purpose, use
and history of the +<tag> mechanism, makes that you have absolutely no
right to continue your usual confrontational, abusive and insulting MO.
And your continuous silent snipping of your correspondent's comments/
arguments is only adding insult to injury.

[(Much) More of the same crap deleted.]

Come back when you're actually willing to read, understand and learn.

Until then, it's EOD.

Frank,

> That you clearly do not understand what is and is not the purpose,

Lets put it this way : A gun is made to shoot. But for some odd reason we
do not put them into the hands of children.

But here you are, trying to "teach" me about stuff that, when not used
carefully, can hurt the one using it. As long as you think that that is
acceptable/sane we really have nothing to talk about.

Besides the problem that you do not actually wish to /discuss/ anything that
is.

And by the way, I see that you have no wish to quote what you are
complaining about and explain yourself. Which makes me wonder if there was
anything to complain about to begin with ...

And oh yeah, your example where you first have to set up a receiving email
box before you can use the "+<tag>" (as you where referring to it) ? I
don't think that was/is how its supposed to be used, as that such a usage
would just be an email alias with a "+" character in the username. IOW,
that "clearly do not understand" might well be in your own ballpark.

tl;dr:
I think I've made the cons of that "fastmail" implementation clear. If you
want to offset it with some pros than be my guest. If you want you may
also put some pros and/or cons forward to the implementation as I put
forward in my third post (to David) in this thread.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> > That you clearly do not understand what is and is not the purpose,
>
> Lets put it this way : A gun is made to shoot. But for some odd reason we
> do not put them into the hands of children.

It's not a gun, it's just an email address, nothing more, nothing
less.

> But here you are, trying to "teach" me about stuff that, when not used
> carefully, can hurt the one using it.

As I said, an e-mail address with a +<tag> is not any more - or less -
dangerous than one without such a tag. Both can and will be abused.

> As long as you think that that is
> acceptable/sane we really have nothing to talk about.

It is what it is. There's nothing acceptable/sane or unacceptable/
insane about it. *You* make it 'unacceptable/insane', because you
describe a use - spam/bad_actor protection - for which it's *NOT*
intended. *Again*: *Read* and try to understand the lawn mowing analogy.
And *again*:

[Rewind/Repeat:]

Moral: Use it or don't use it. Don't misuse/abuse it.

[End Rewind/Repeat.]

> Besides the problem that you do not actually wish to /discuss/ anything that
> is.

Sorry, doesn't compute. Probably some word(s) is/are missing.

> And by the way, I see that you have no wish to quote what you are
> complaining about and explain yourself. Which makes me wonder if there was
> anything to complain about to begin with ...

I've explained things (I do not have to explain myself, because this
is not about me) over and over again, and you keep silently snipping and
ignoring it over and over again. See for example the above lawn mowing
analogy. That's the *third* time.

> And oh yeah, your example where you first have to set up a receiving email
> box before you can use the "+<tag>" (as you where referring to it) ?

No that's *not* what *I* said. That's what *you* *assumed*. And I
countered.

Obviously you will have to set up the *main* e-mail *account* (with
it's Inbox), i.e. <user>@<domain>.<tld>, The rest is up to the provider
which offers the plus-addressing facility/functionality.

> I
> don't think that was/is how its supposed to be used, as that such a usage
> would just be an email alias with a "+" character in the username. IOW,
> that "clearly do not understand" might well be in your own ballpark.
>
> tl;dr:
> I think I've made the cons of that "fastmail" implementation clear. If you
> want to offset it with some pros than be my guest.

You've not made the cons "of that "fastmail" implementation" clear,
because Fastmail is doing what it's supposed to do for plus-addressing.
(Unless you have found something where Fastmail is not following the
standard.)

The pros are clear: Filtering of incoming e-mail tags. Again, yes
there are other ways to do similar things, but that doesn't mean it's
not useful functionality. (BTW. Don't keep harping about Fastmail.
Fastmail is just *an example*. An example I found when you asked for
more information about the use of '+' in e-mail addresses.)

[Rewind/Repeat:]

Moral: Use it or don't use it. Don't misuse/abuse it.

[End Rewind/Repeat.]

> If you want you may
> also put some pros and/or cons forward to the implementation as I put
> forward in my third post (to David) in this thread.

No, that's just another can of worms. Maybe David will volunteer. :-)

Frank,

> As I said, an e-mail address with a +<tag> is not any more - or
> less - dangerous than one without such a tag.

And I countered that with explaining how the implementation of it makes
quite a difference. Wich you have and now probably will again ignore.

You're not here to discuss. I'm even wondering if you know what that word
means.

> Both can and will be abused.

So, just "lie down and think of England" ? Its already there so even
talking about how it perhaps could be done better is useless ? Really ?

>> Besides the problem that you do not actually wish to /discuss/ anything
>> that is.
>
> Sorry, doesn't compute. Probably some word(s) is/are missing.

Yeah, thats a tough one .. Which word could be missing from the end of the
line ? Could it be ... "green" perhaps ? Nope, don't think so. Nope, I'm
stumped and totally get it that you cannot make cheese of it. /s

> I've explained things (I do not have to explain myself, because this
> is not about me) over and over again, and you keep silently snipping
> and ignoring it over and over again. See for example the above lawn
> mowing analogy. That's the *third* time.

You're trying to make some (big) thing over that I didn't repond to your "It
also sucks at mowing your lawn" statement ? Thats it ? I didn't think you
wanted me to go challenge you about how you feel about mowing lawns. Thats
between you and your shrink.

And as you said it yourself, it was ment as an analogy. Of what ? You being
defeatistic ? Yeah, you made that already clear in the line before it -
which I *did* challenge you on. So no, I didn't ignore it.

Any more you have the feeling of I purposely ignored / should have responded
to that you want to mention ?

>> And oh yeah, your example where you first have to set up a receiving
>> email box before you can use the "+<tag>" (as you where referring to
>> it) ?
>
> No that's *not* what *I* said. That's what *you* *assumed*. And I
> countered.

The problem is that you *said* next to nothing, forcing me, for the sake of
a possible discussion, to fill in the blanks - which I than posted to give
you a chance to correct my "assumptions". You didn't, leaving me to
believe that that is what you ment. IOW, the results are on *you* head, not
mine. I did my best.

And you say you countered it ? You are aware that I can read previous
messages ?

[quote]
Hmmm!? Did anyone say it was better? I don't think so. Someone said it
is an alternative, but that someone's comments get snipped and ignored.

BTW, I don't know if servers need folders to be set up beforehand.
Maybe it's automatic. Maybe it's not needed for POP.
[/quote]

Which of that do you consider being the countering ?

All I see is some vague "maybe something somewhere somehow solves that".
IOW, a "don't bother me with it".

And by the way : that stuff I "snipped and ignored" there ? Care to quote
what it was and explain why I shouldn't have ? I'm interested.

> You've not made the cons "of that "fastmail" implementation" clear,

I've not done that ? Than what was your "it is what it is" blurb about ?

> because Fastmail is doing what it's supposed to do for plus-addressing.

Funny, I distincly remember you questioning if it was an RFC thingy - Which
it doesn't seem to be. So how come you're now talking about "what it's
supposed to do" ? Where did you get that conviction from ?

> The pros are clear: Filtering of incoming e-mail tags. Again, yes
> there are other ways to do similar things, but that doesn't mean
> it's not useful functionality.

It may be usefull functionality, but its not a pro. Maybe you don't know
it, but a pro is something with which a certain .. something distinguishes
itself form other, similar products. I mean, you're not going to mention
the fact that an apple contains water as a pro, now are you ?

> (BTW. Don't keep harping about Fastmail.
> Fastmail is just *an example*.

Pray tell, how would you wish me to refer to that aberration of an
implementation otherwise ? You got three words or less - with "fastmail"
leading with just one word.

> An example I found when you asked for more information about the
> use of '+' in e-mail addresses.)

and you saw and stil do not seem to see a problem with it. :-(

Frank, before you came up with that fastmail example I already described, in
a few steps, how the whole thing could work - including considering how to
tackle the *way* to obvious possibility for abuse. I've not seen you
respond to that at all, even though I seem to remember I've referred to it a
few times. Should I now accuse you of purposely ignoring it ? If I should
not, why ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:

[...]

We're running around in circles and - after just a single
out-of-character response - you're back to your usual silent-snipping,
confrontational, abusive and insulting MO.

You seem to think that the plus-addressing/+<tag> standard/mechanism
needs to be defended/improved and that your correspondent needs to do
the defending and that you can demand improvements as you will. Same
story for Fastmail or whatever other plus-addressing provider.

You also seem to think that you can ignore and silently snip any
comment/argument you want, and that when that pathetic/dishonest
behaviour is pointed out to you, it's your correspondent's duty to
repost the snipped material, so that you can snip it again.

You're mistaken, utterly mistaken.

So in closing, I'm repeating, for the umpteenth time, the very essence
which you've been ignoring and silently snipping from the get go:

[Rewind/Repeat:]

Moral: Use it or don't use it. Don't misuse/abuse it.

[End Rewind/Repeat.]

EOD.

Frank,

> We're running around in circles

Thats something I can agree with.

> - after just a single out-of-character response - you're back
> to your usual silent-snipping, confrontational, abusive and
> insulting MO.

Take a wild guess what I think your your behaviour. No, not anything good
I'm afraid.

I've done my best to show and explain to you my side of the story, and all
you can do is shoot stuff down. No, that is not even a conversation, let
alone a discussion.

And that out-of-character response ? Thats the one I *want* to be,
exchanging information and considering each others POVs. You do not seem to
want to do anything like that.

And its a bit rich that you call *me* insulting, having come up with
accusations of having on purpose not quoted/responded to stuff and am not
understanding what you're trying to say.

Lets turn that around, shall we : Did *you* understand what I said ? And if
so why didn't you grant me the simple curtesy of acknowledging what I
brought forward ?

But no, it looks like all the wrong behaviour is laying with the person you
are talking at. And no, that "at" is not a mistake.

> You also seem to think that you can ignore and silently snip any
> comment/argument you want, and that when that pathetic/dishonest
> behaviour is pointed out to you, it's your correspondent's duty to
> repost the snipped material, so that you can snip it again.

:-) So, there you have your own abhorrent behaviour : claiming that the
other, me, does something wrong and than refusing to clarify - on the
grounds that in your mind you are already sure that he will just do it
again.

THats ad, as I was serious when I said I wanted to hear about the others.
That way I could verify if I really missed something that should have
responded to - and possibly even apologized for it. And yes, I've been
known to do that, But as you are refusing to show me what transgressions I
supposedly have made you are simply not giving me any chance to do any of
that. IOW, don't complain, as you called it over yourself.

> So in closing, I'm repeating, for the umpteenth time, the very essence
> which you've been ignoring and silently snipping from the get go:
>
> [Rewind/Repeat:]
>
> Moral: Use it or don't use it. Don't misuse/abuse it.
>
> [End Rewind/Repeat.]

Lol. I have made it *very* clear what I think about that, several times
over. IOW, it looks like you yourself are guilty of what you accuse me of,
have "missed" me doing so, or simply "didn't understand" what you read.

> EOD.

Shucks. That leaves a number of my questions and rebuttals (i mu previous
message) unanswered. I wonder why you have choosen to bluntly ignore them
....

Like my

>> As I said, an e-mail address with a +<tag> is not any more -
>> or less - dangerous than one without such a tag.
>
> And I countered that with explaining how the implementation of it
> makes quite a difference.

Or my

>> So, just "lie down and think of England" ? Its already there so even
>> talking about how it perhaps could be done better is useless ? Really ?

or my

>> You're trying to make some (big) thing over that I didn't repond to your
>> "It also sucks at mowing your lawn" statement ? Thats it ?

or my

>> And you say you countered it ? You are aware that I can read
>> previous messages ?
[snipped for brevity]
>> Which of that do you consider being the countering ?

or else

>> No that's *not* what *I* said. That's what *you* *assumed*. And I
>> countered.
>
> The problem is that you *said* next to nothing, forcing me, for the sake
> of a possible discussion, to fill in the blanks

and so on.

IOW, you're are, and have been guilty of doing exactly what you've been
accusing me of.

> EOD.

To repeat *my*self, don't flatter yourself, we never had a discussion. And
thats pretty-much at the basis of our current conflict.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
[...]

> I've done my best to show and explain to you my side of the story, and all
> you can do is shoot stuff down. No, that is not even a conversation, let
> alone a discussion.

Don't rewrite what happened.

You asked a question. I responded with some information and a
reference. That's it. No discussion, just your question and my answer/
response.

But for some strange reason you didn't like the facts and started to
re-define what plus-adressing/+<tag> (and Fastmail) should do and
shouldn't do. When I said it was not meant to provide protection against
spam, you refused to accept that and went from bad to worse. In some
strange way, I was and am blamed for you refusing to accept the
facts/standard/reality.

Feel free to read it back. It's all there.

So if you still have a question, ask away and I/we might be able to
answer/respond. But if you just want to force your way of how existing
standard-compliant things should - according to you - work, on others,
then don't bother, or at least don't bother me with that.

It's up to you.

[...]

Frank,

>> I've done my best to show and explain to you my side of the story, and
>> all
>> you can do is shoot stuff down. No, that is not even a conversation, let
>> alone a discussion.
>
> Don't rewrite what happened.
>
> You asked a question. I responded with some information and a
> reference.

No frank, that isn't what happened. I responded to that example of yours
and you responded back - with your "it is what it is" shooting down.

> That's it. No discussion, just your question and my answer/
> response.

I agree with you there was no discussion, but the next part is untrue. To
quote yourself "Feel free to read it back. It's all there".

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Summary: "you're back to your usual silent-snipping"

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> >> I've done my best to show and explain to you my side of the story, and
> >> all
> >> you can do is shoot stuff down. No, that is not even a conversation, let
> >> alone a discussion.
> >
> > Don't rewrite what happened.
> >
> > You asked a question. I responded with some information and a
> > reference.

Now even silently snipping mid-paragraph, are we!? :-()

> No frank, that isn't what happened. I responded to that example of yours
> and you responded back - with your "it is what it is" shooting down.

It *is* what happened and you're *again* rewriting what happened, by
*again* silently snipping comments/arguments. (Do you *really* think
that people fall for such pathetic, dishonest, tricks!? :-()

Clue-by-four: *Read* and *try to* comprehend my (snipped) paragraph
"But for some strange reason you didn't like the facts ...".

Fact: I did no "shooting down", *you* didn't "accept the facts/
standard/reality". Not anyone's problem, but yours.

Moral: That what you get for lying-by-ommision and
lying-by-mispresentation.

So in the off-chance you want to continue and do better: NO MORE
SILENT SNIPPING of comments/arguments.

[Again,] It's up to you.

[Again,] Until then, it's EOD.

[...]

Frank,

> Now even silently snipping mid-paragraph, are we!? :-()

Nope, I'm not "silently" snipping, I'm dropping.

And what is it with that "silently snipping" of yours ? Some kind of fetish
? Or just some accusation you can repeat every time you feel like it ?

Ofcourse, not explained why the "silently snipped" parts are important, and
refusing, because of "reasons", to provide any when asked.

Frank, I've just gone thru a multi-week exchange with nospam. IOW, you're
not my first rodeo.

> [Again,] Until then, it's EOD.

Yeah, thats your third time now. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> > Now even silently snipping mid-paragraph, are we!? :-()
>
> Nope, I'm not "silently" snipping, I'm dropping.

Yes, you're "dropping" your correspondent's comments/arguments, so you
can't pretend they weren't written/made. The Usenet equivalent of
'sticking your fingers in your ears'. Most children grow out of it.

> And what is it with that "silently snipping" of yours ? Some kind of fetish
> ? Or just some accusation you can repeat every time you feel like it ?

Oh dear, the vilain complains about being accused!? Can't do the time,
....

> Ofcourse, not explained why the "silently snipped" parts are important, and
> refusing, because of "reasons", to provide any when asked.

Only the utterly clueless would need an explanation as to why the
snipped comments/arguments are important, especially because those
comment/arguments are *repeated* after being snipped, only to be snipped
again. Which is exactly what you did again in the post I'm responding
to. I.e. I *did* explain and you snipped *again*.

> Frank, I've just gone thru a multi-week exchange with nospam. IOW, you're
> not my first rodeo.

Yes, I've seen that. And while I'm no fan of nospam (Who is!?),
in several areas, you're completely off the rails in that "rodeo" as
well. You'd better let the rodeos to the cowboys, because - to put it
mildly - you're not very good at it.

> > [Again,] Until then, it's EOD.
>
> Yeah, thats your third time now. :-)

I didn't expect you to get the conditional, so I'm not disappointed,
but yes, in *this* response, I'm breaking the condition I set. But then,
it never was a D, was it!?

> Regards,

You *really* should drop that signoff! You clearly, don't mean it and
hence it's offensive.

But the offer still stands.

Frank,

>> Nope, I'm not "silently" snipping, I'm dropping.
>
> Yes, you're "dropping" your correspondent's comments/arguments,

And there you are, again complaining about *others* dropping stuff - and
than refusing to talk about them when asked.

In the post you replied to I included a partial list of what *you* "silently
snipped". And surprise, surprise, that was "silently snipped" too.

I short, frank, you're demanding a certain behaviour from me, while not
behaving the same way yourself. That "one rule for me, another for
everyone else" has a name : hypocricy.

And before you complain about this too, just remember what you said yourself
: "it is what it is". Just accept it as it is and don't try to make an
issue outof it.

Goodby frank.

And yes, the rest is dropped to.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser