MLM subaddress requirement

Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> Tue, 05 August 1997 16:46 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa13310; 5 Aug 97 12:46 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 MAA13441; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:45:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id JAA09462 for ietf-822-bks; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (SYSTEM@THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA09454 for <ietf-822@imc.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eleanor.innosoft.com ("port 54711"@ELEANOR.INNOSOFT.COM) by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-8 #8694) with SMTP id <01IM2QLBFHKA8WWTGT@INNOSOFT.COM> for ietf-822@imc.org; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:28:30 PDT
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 09:30:22 -0700
From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Subject: MLM subaddress requirement
In-reply-to: <199708051440.KAA34916@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: ietf-822@imc.org
Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970805090424.18309B-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>
Content-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970805092134.18309F@eleanor.innosoft.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: MULTIPART/SIGNED; BOUNDARY="-559023410-1804928587-870798622=:18309"
Originator-Info: login-id=chris; server=thor.innosoft.com
Sender: owner-ietf-822@imc.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 5 Aug 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 'fred', 'fred+warbot', 'fred+ghost' etc to be the "same" or not.  As has
> been pointed out, this has a *large* impact on MLM systems, and on anything
> that wants to do cryptographic signatures.
>
> This message is PGP-signed.  Would I have to add a new userid to my public
> key and re-send it to the keyservers each time I started using a new '+whatever'
> address?  Remember - the answer to this is *NOT* PGP-specific... ;)

Suppose I re-word the MLM rule as follows:

---
A subaddress aware MLM MUST provide a way for a user to use his
primary address with a subaddress for subscription and use just his
primary address for posting.  Some ways to meet this requirement include:

(1) Having no restrictions on who can post to the list.

(2) Permitting subscribers to register different posting and submission
addresses.

(3) Ignoring subaddresses for the purpose of permitting postings.
---

This now directly dictates the interoperability issue rather than a
particular solution to it (which is what I should have done in the first
draft).  There are plenty of ways to address this requirement without any
significant impact on MLM systems or security validation.

> Bottom line - I think this proposal is a non-starter unless it provides
> a way for a *remote* system (such as a MLM or what-have-you) to
> determine if the option is available or not.

Do you still feel this is necessary if I make the above change?

		- Chris