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

Randall Gellens <> Wed, 05 December 2007 22:39 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J02tv-00013c-97; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:39:31 -0500
Received: from discuss by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J02tu-00013P-89 for; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:39:30 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J02tt-000139-UV for; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:39:29 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J02tt-0004Ej-Ha for; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:39:29 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id lB5MdS9X009496 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:39:28 -0800
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id lB5MdQXv007606; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:39:27 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
X-message-flag: Warning: Outlook in use. Upgrade to Eudora: <>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:36:00 -0800
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
From: Randall Gellens <>
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-newman-email-subaddr-01.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
Cc: Apps Discuss <>, Dave Cridland <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

At 5:20 PM +0100 12/4/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

>  On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 07:45:47PM -0800,
>   Randall Gellens <> 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.

Even as a local convention, it is helpful to have a document that describes it.

>   (How can you tell if
> is not an address with subaddressing and "m" as the
>  delimiter?)

Only the recipient's environment needs to know.  I certainly don't 
need to know if I'm sending you email if the particular address I 
have for you is subaddressed.

At present, the document does contain text about list servers 
recognizing subaddressing.  This is the one area where I'm not 
convinced.  I can see the benefit, but I think that once we allow for 
anything that isn't after final delivery knowing about subaddressing, 
at that point we have changed it from a purely local convention to 
one that does indeed have meaning elsewhere, and we pretty much are 
then forced to choose a single (or maybe two) character for the 
delimiter.  Because of this, I am wavering as to if we should mention 
list servers or not.
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of
them to choose from.                  --Andrew S. Tanenbaum