Re: failure to address objections

Chris Newman <> Thu, 07 August 1997 22:26 UTC

Received: from cnri by id aa21273; 7 Aug 97 18:26 EDT
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid SAA20441; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 18:24:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by (8.8.5/8.7.3) id OAA10912 for ietf-822-bks; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 14:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (SYSTEM@THOR.INNOSOFT.COM []) by (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA10900 for <>; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 14:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ("port 56299"@ELEANOR.INNOSOFT.COM) by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-8 #8694) with SMTP id <01IM5UVMHQ9894DT0X@INNOSOFT.COM> for; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 15:03:44 PDT
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 15:05:35 -0700
From: Chris Newman <>
Subject: Re: failure to address objections
In-reply-to: <>
Message-id: <>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Originator-Info: login-id=chris;
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> For example, qmail automatically handles existing usernames containing
> the separator character. Newman's proposal doesn't.
> This is not a minor issue. This is a fundamental flaw in Newman's
> proposal. His insistence on a global syntax means that he cannot handle
> existing usernames correctly.

For the MLM rules this is a non-issue.  It is an issue for the final
delivery agent if there are legacy usernames on the system.  The latter
case will be addressed.

> As another example, qmail's default separator, "-", automatically gives
> ``project'' control over MLM addresses such as ``project-request''.
> Newman's proposal doesn't.

The character "-" is used as a non-hiearachy separator much more commonly
than "+" is so used.  In fact one of the more popular email address
conventions <first.last@domain> conflicts with your use of "-" due to
dashed last names.  And just to make myself clear, I'd be willing to
agree to change to "=" as the default.  My objection is solely a technical
objection to "-".

> Newman hasn't shown any willingness to address these objections---
> because addressing them would mean throwing his proposal away. He just
> ignores them. That's dishonest.

This statement is false.  I have attempted to respond to every one of your
technical objections.  This is very difficult to do as it is hard to
separate the technical content of your messages from the self-promotion,
insults, attacks and empty rhetoric.

> Why are you recommending Innosoft's inferior technology? 

Your public attacks on my employeer are misleading, tiresome, pointless
and very obnoxious.  If you want me to listen to your technical comments,
stop attacking my employeer and myself publicly.  I will not respond to
this sort of blather again.

		- Chris Newman