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

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Tue, 04 December 2007 21:50 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 1IzffO-00015k-3G; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:50:58 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IzffM-0000xx-P2 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:50:56 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzffM-0000tz-Av for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:50:56 -0500
Received: from bes.cs.utk.edu ([160.36.56.220]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzffK-0006Z7-52 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:50:56 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bes.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA6A11030F3; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:50:53 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new with ClamAV and SpamAssasin at cs.utk.edu
Received: from bes.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bes.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BRizDntw3F1L; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:50:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lust.indecency.org (dhcp-17a4.ietf70.org [130.129.23.164]) by bes.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA771030D9; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:50:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4755CBAA.10003@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:50:34 -0800
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-newman-email-subaddr-01.txt
References: <E1It5KL-00032t-Up@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> <20071203094351.GA19449@nic.fr> <2639.1196720643.545129@peirce.dave.cridland.net> <20071204161659.GA19161@nic.fr> <1623535398.20071204093500@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1623535398.20071204093500@pobox.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5
OpenPGP: id=E1473978
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Cc: Apps-Discusssion <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

> Well, it seems to be "partial" current practice. My public email address
> goes to a forwarder (pobox.com) that, being fairly knowledgable in the
> email area, will rewrite my address while preserving the detail portion
> when forwarding it to my actual ISP. I know they understand the "+"
> delimiter, but I haven't tested other delimiters.
>
> Unfortunately, my current ISP rejects such addresses as Recipient Unknown!
> This means that MY "local convention" is thwarted by my ISPs "border
> servers".
>
> I would love to point the ISP to an RFC that shows them what ought to be
> allowed.
>   
is this a case of your ISP not supporting subaddressing on its mail
servers, or a case of your ISP imposing an interception proxy that
interferes with traffic to your own mail servers?