Oh, yes, I have no illusions about whether this will actually be a universal solution to any problem other than as a means to get the rfc-ignorant.org folks off our collective backs. People unwilling to provide a usable e-mail address will just fill in a non-usable (/dev/null'ed?) e-mail address.
It's not going to get anybody anywhere, unless we go to the extreme of a 3-way verification as a precondition to holdership of resources registered in the DB, and a recurring verification procedure. If you force a "usable address" you might as well end up with an anon mailer at yahoo, hotmail, gmx,... And if you block those, then nobody prevents me from simply picking an address which is contained in a different, randomly chosen, object. Pretty cheap DoS mechanism, in the end ;-) And last but not least, with the procedures in place for many (most?) ISPs these days, and the channnel-hopping behaviour of users/sites in the domain name space, there is no basis any longer for consistency *and actually getting a human being look at the message*. If rfc-ignorant.org folks don't understand that, then we should suggest a default entry being put in by the DB software (how about postmaster@rfc-ignorant.org ?). A maybe more heplful question would be: what do they want to achieve, and is there reasonable merit in those goals to have the community find a sound mechanism for implementation? Wilfried.