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

der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Tue, 04 December 2007 19:02 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izd22-0005Hc-30; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:02:10 -0500
Received: from discuss by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Izd20-0005HR-N1 for; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:02:08 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izd20-0005HJ-DQ for; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:02:08 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izd1y-0001HM-Og for; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:02:08 -0500
Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA06181; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:02:05 -0500 (EST)
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Message-Id: <200712041902.OAA06181@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway.
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies.
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:54:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-newman-email-subaddr-01.txt
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

>> [..."global subaddressing"...]
>> That's may be a good idea but it is something new, not a description
>> of a current practice.
> Well, it seems to be "partial" current practice.  My public email
> address goes to a forwarder ( that, being fairly
> knowledgable in the email area, will rewrite my address while
> preserving the detail portion when forwarding it to my actual ISP.

Sure, but this is by private agreement among, you, and your
actual provider; it is hardly "global", and, as with almost everything
else involving local-parts, is the business of nobody but those three

> Unfortunately, my current ISP rejects such addresses as Recipient
> Unknown!  This means that MY "local convention" is thwarted by my
> ISPs "border servers".

Yes, anyone who rejects plussed addresses because they think the plus
sign renders the address invalid is broken.

> I would love to point the ISP to an RFC that shows them what ought to
> be allowed.

2822 (and 2821, which refers to 2822 for many things, including this).

Given their present position, they probably aren't going to want to
even read it, much less implement it.  To me this means you need to
stop getting mail through them, switching instead to someone who
actually understands email.  Fortunately, there are many places that
will cheerfully host email for you, for comparatively little money -
you might even be able to find one willing to comp your account.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B