Re: please don't feed the Dan

Chris Newman <> Sat, 09 August 1997 00:35 UTC

Received: from cnri by id aa17356; 8 Aug 97 20:35 EDT
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid UAA23625; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 20:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by (8.8.5/8.7.3) id RAA01335 for ietf-822-bks; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 17:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (SYSTEM@THOR.INNOSOFT.COM []) by (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA01331 for <>; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 17:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ("port 56692"@ELEANOR.INNOSOFT.COM) by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-9 #8694) with SMTP id <01IM7DGDXQNO94DX8P@INNOSOFT.COM> for; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 17:06:39 PDT
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 17:08:30 -0700
From: Chris Newman <>
Subject: Re: please don't feed the Dan
In-reply-to: <>
To: Joe Kelsey <>
Message-id: <>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Originator-Info: login-id=chris;
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> In this case he has correctly analyzed the broken proposal of Newman as
> being an attempt to make the CMU/Innosoft subaddress scheme a global
> requirement simply for the perceived benefit of one administrator who
> doesn't want to support what user's really want to do.

Guessing other people's motives is always a dubious venture, and both Dan
and you have guessed incorrectly.  My motives are as follows:

(1) I like subaddressing and think others would like it as well.

(2) Quality MUA interfaces for subaddressing can't be built without a 
standard since it requires cooperation between MUA and the final delivery
agent (which usually are on different hosts).

(3) Certain spam-limitation efforts on MLMs make the use of subaddresses
for subscriptions a real pain.

(4) I like to write standards for the benefit of the community.  I also
noted that this would benefit my employeer, but that has more impact on
my personal vs. work time allocation then anything else.  This is a
personal proposal -- not an Innosoft or CMU proposal.

So I wrote a _first rough draft_ of a standard based on personal
experience with the intent to address (1)-(3).  I brought the rough draft
forward for public comment so it can be refined to a level suitable for
standardization, if possible.

The result is that I've learned a lot more about how people use
subaddresses and will make substantial revisions in the next draft.  Now
can we please end the confrontational garbage and stick with technical

		- Chris