Re: failure to address objections
"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu> Fri, 08 August 1997 00:18 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa22929; 7 Aug 97 20:18 EDT
Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid UAA20668; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 20:16:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id QAA19294 for ietf-822-bks; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 16:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (qmailr@koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA19290 for <ietf-822@imc.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 16:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23883 invoked by uid 666); 7 Aug 1997 23:55:58 -0000
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 23:55:58 -0000
Message-ID: <19970807235558.23882.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu>
To: ietf-822@imc.org
Subject: Re: failure to address objections
Sender: owner-ietf-822@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
[ existing addresses, not subaddresses, containing "+" ] > For the MLM rules this is a non-issue. False. Your MLM rules impose a global syntax and global semantics. Whenever one of your ``subaddress aware'' MLMs accepts bob+ruth@absolutely.anywhere, it is also required to accept bob+liz. This global scheme is incompatible with existing addresses. Your MLM requirement is a security violation. > I have attempted to respond to every one of your technical objections. Mm-hm. Where exactly is your response to the widget-request problem? Just to refresh your memory: There's a group project account called widget. ``widget'' is also the mailing list for that project, run by some MLM. Most separators are incompatible with the de facto ``-request'' standard. If "+" is the separator, for example, the widget people will end up pestering the sysadmin for a special ``widget-request'' alias. With "-" as the subaddress separator, the widget account automatically controls ``widget-request'', as well as ``widget-owner'' and ``widget-subscribe'' and whatever other addresses the MLM might support. This is clearly superior. Getting you to admit that the right address is ``widget-request'' and not ``widget+request'' was like pulling teeth; I had to ask three times. Apparently you don't want to admit any benefits of "-". You've spent far more time claiming, incorrectly, that "-" doesn't work. > In fact one of the more popular email address > conventions <first.last@domain> conflicts with your use of "-" due to > dashed last names. False. Many qmail sysadmins use this convention. There is no conflict. For example, if there are jean and jean-pierre.serre accounts, the jean-pierre.serre account controls jean-pierre.serre-books-request. (UNIX traditionally doesn't support such long account names, but qmail supports a translation table: e.g., jps:jean-pierre.serre.) Similarly, if + is the separator, and there are smith and smith+co accounts, the address smith+co+help is controlled by smith+co. Next strawman? ---Dan Set up a new mailing list in a single command. http://pobox.com/~djb/ezmlm.html
- failure to address objections D. J. Bernstein
- Re: failure to address objections Chris Newman
- Re: failure to address objections D. J. Bernstein