On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 15:54:37 +
Georg Koppen allegedly wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> As indicated in our bug tracker a while ago[1] we have some strong
> incentives to redo our ContactInfo field. I've collected all the
> different use cases and combined them in a single proposal,
>
On 10/31/2023 03:09PM t...@nullvoid.me wrote ..
> My only concern with your solution is anyone can pretend to be the owner of a
> relay.
- What do you have to say to a relay owner that cannot be said publicly?
- What do you have to say that needs a reply?
In the rare cases where you would have
I've been thinking long and hard about this problem and I'm not sure if an
email address - validated or not - is the best way to achieve the initial goals.
What are the goals of having this validated email address?
1- Inform the operator;
2- Make sure the operator will read the info;
3-
Hi!
Xiaoqi Chen (Danny):
Hi Georg,
First of all, thanks to all of you for the effort writing up the proposal!
Sure. Thank you for your input.
I saw that email obfuscation was discussed but no solution was proposed. I
want to throw in some ideas about obfuscating the email centrally:
-
Hi Georg,
First of all, thanks to all of you for the effort writing up the proposal!
I saw that email obfuscation was discussed but no solution was proposed. I
want to throw in some ideas about obfuscating the email centrally:
- Let's not publish cleartext email in any public descriptor, and
Hello everyone!
As indicated in our bug tracker a while ago[1] we have some strong
incentives to redo our ContactInfo field. I've collected all the
different use cases and combined them in a single proposal, discussing
some potential concerns and future work we could get built upon it. The
