News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work. Parent comment

Re:Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work by Arnt on Saturday July 16, 2016 @04:35AM (#12105693)
6409 contains the same wording: "MAY modify submissions to ensure compliance with standards and site policy" and gives examples.

The sections on header rewriting are essentially examples of what the document describes as "modifications that are often considered useful", they're not an exhaustive list. The only MUST NOT rule that concerns email address rewriting is about destination addresses.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work by leephillips on Saturday July 16, 2016 @09:23AM (#12106250)
Is it your opinion that a reasonable interpretation of 6409 is that a submission agent may falsify the sender of an email? Or create false associations between personal names and email addresses?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work by Arnt on Sunday July 17, 2016 @11:53AM (#12110529)
No RFC rule prevents that, and as far as I know no RFCs even try to define what constitutes a true or false association between a personal name and an email address. But RFC 6409 gives site policy unrestricted permission to allow or deny that.

(Well, almost unrestricted. The results have to be syntactically valid.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work by leephillips on Sunday July 17, 2016 @09:36PM (#12112806)
I don't think your interpretation of the RFCs is natural or remotely reasonable; in fact it leads to absurd consequences. We'll have to leave it at that. I stand by everything in the article.
[ Parent | on HN ]