Re: I-D Action:draft-newman-email-subaddr-01.txt

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 04 December 2007 16:17 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzaSG-00023H-38; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:17:04 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IzaSE-0001nr-5M for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:17:02 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzaSD-0001lA-P0 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:17:01 -0500
Received: from mx2.nic.fr ([192.134.4.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzaSC-0002EQ-92 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:17:01 -0500
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 516061C0172; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:16:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0551C016E; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:16:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4930158ECBE; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:16:59 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:16:59 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-newman-email-subaddr-01.txt
Message-ID: <20071204161659.GA19161@nic.fr>
References: <E1It5KL-00032t-Up@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> <20071203094351.GA19449@nic.fr> <2639.1196720643.545129@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2639.1196720643.545129@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-5-686 i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 10:24:03PM +0000,
 Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> wrote 
 a message of 89 lines which said:

> As good as any.

May be ietf-smtp@imc.org would have been a better place?

> Subaddressing isn't described anywhere, 

That's the whole point, I believe. Subaddressing has always been a
matter of local conventions (like the Firstname.Name@example.org
convention in many environments), not needing to be "described".

If I understand you well, you suggest to create (not describe) a new
concept, "global subaddressing", with a standard delimiter and
subaddressing-aware software, allowing new tricks (like the MLM you
mention, which accepts mail only from subscribers and who can
recognize them even when they use subaddressing).

That's may be a good idea but it is something new, not a description
of a current practice.

> No, every component needs to know about it.
> 
> 1) The final MTA.
> 2) The MDA.
> 3) The MUA.
> 4) The Submission server.

Can you explain why the MUA and the MSA need to know it?