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

der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Thu, 06 December 2007 00:09 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J04Iv-00065w-EQ; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:09:25 -0500
Received: from discuss by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J04Iu-00062v-HK for; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:09:24 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J04Iu-00061o-7N for; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:09:24 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J04It-0004Zm-Os for; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:09:24 -0500
Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA28323; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:09:21 -0500 (EST)
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Message-Id: <200712060009.TAA28323@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: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:58:55 -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: <>, <>

>> Whereas, if the MLM is explicitly told that the convention is in use
>> within the ADMD (at least for this subscriber),

This raises another hazard of a convention like this: it can lead to
things like MLMs assuming that anything with a + (or whatever
deliminiter is chosen) is an instance of this convention, leading to
severe brokenness when faced with addresses at a site that doesn't work
that way.

FWIMBW, I'd prefer to see emphasis on the "nobody but the receiver and
those with out-of-band knowledge of the receiver have any business
assuming anything about local-parts" aspect.  If my system happens to
have an address with local-part *^%+_!^! (or, more plausibly, one+two)
nobody without special knowledge of my system has any business
inferring any structure from that; in particular, inferring that
local-parts *^% (or one, respectively) even exist, much less bear any
relationship to the full form, is broken - absent, of course, specific
out-of-band reason to think the relevant mailer uses plussed addresses.

>> That said, it has been suggested that MLMs might want to go a step
>> further, and rewrite messages such that a message from
>> <> copied to a mailing list which has a
>> (Subaddress-enabled) subscriber of <> would
>> cause the MLM to go as far as rewriting headers to the subscribed
>> address.
> This makes me nervous.

Me too.  Your reason strikes me as valid, but I'm actually more worried
that implementors will lose that "(subaddress-enabled)" part and simply
assume subaddresses - after all, it's Standard, right? - and end up
sending mail to the wrong places.

/~\ 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