On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 09:22:14AM -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 1/20/2021 9:13 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > >> If an inactice player has been inactive continuously for the past > > > > typo: "inactice" twice > > > >> 60 days, then any player CAN deregister em with notice; for such > >> a deregistration to be successful, the publication of intent must > >> have been sent to the inactive player's registered email address > >> in addition to being published. The Registrar SHOULD attempt to > > > > I still think sending to eir email address should be a SHOULD or SHALL > > rather than a requirement for success, since other players can't know > > for sure whether the requirement was met. > > I specifically wrote "sent to" rather than "sent via" here with the idea > that we can see the "to" in the headers and just compare it to the > registrar's report address if questioned? If you don't think that's > sufficient proof, or if that's too subtle a distinction, I think it's an > important enough precaution to make it shall instead of should? > > -G.
Yes, my concern is about proof. I think to: lines can be forged (but I haven't verified that). I'm fine with it being a SHALL. -- Falsifian
