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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 04 December 2007 16:20 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 1IzaVn-0003PJ-Gk; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:20:43 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IzaVl-0003P5-Ax for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:20:41 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzaVl-0003Ov-0V for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:20:41 -0500
Received: from mx2.nic.fr ([192.134.4.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzaVk-0002bV-Mq for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:20:40 -0500
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C6351C0174; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:20:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471F71C0168; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:20:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4392D58ECBE; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:20:40 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:20:40 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Randall Gellens <randy@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-newman-email-subaddr-01.txt
Message-ID: <20071204162040.GB19161@nic.fr>
References: <E1It5KL-00032t-Up@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> <20071203094351.GA19449@nic.fr> <p06240617c37a7970893b@dhcp-407d.ietf70.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <p06240617c37a7970893b@dhcp-407d.ietf70.org>
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: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Dave Cridland <dave.cridland@isode.com>
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 07:45:47PM -0800,
 Randall Gellens <randy@qualcomm.com> wrote 
 a message of 95 lines which said:

> Currently, subaddressing is mostly part of the mostly undocumented
> email lore that some implementers are aware of while others are not.

And that's the right way: subaddressing does not have to be
documented, it is a local convention. (How can you tell if
bortzmeyer@nic.fr is not an address with subaddressing and "m" as the
delimiter?)

> Formalizing the concept is a good thing. 

I'm not convinced.

> This is useful, but separate.  (Also, wasn't this done a few years ago?)

I do not think so, alas. I'm engaged in a personal crusade against
such Web forms and the 1 or 2 % of the webmasters who do reply to my
complaints always said that bortzmeyer+something@nic.fr is not a legal
email address... Pointing them to RFC 2822 does not help, the grammar
is too... funny.