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

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 10:08 AM +0000 12/5/07, Dave Cridland wrote:

>  Whereas, if the MLM is explicitly told that the convention is in 
> use within the ADMD (at least for this subscriber), then it can 
> perform that kind of action without the need for potentially 
> dangerous guesswork.

There isn't any way to tell the MLM, though, aside from some 
administrative interface that is beyond the reach of most users of 
most MLMs.  That's why I'm not convinced that the list server text is 
worth keeping.

>  FWIW, I think there's a BCP to be written on MLMs; the state of the 
> art is getting quite refined, these days, and it's another area I 
> can't really find much documentation. (List-* header fields not 
> withstanding).

There's also a document a while back on using standard addresses, 
such as the -request address, and standard commands, IIRC.  But a BCP 
on MLMs would be a good thing.

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

This makes me nervous.  There may be some reason why a particular 
subaddress was used for a message.  I don't think the MLM is in any 
position to know what is the right thing to do here.  I'd be 
delighted if my MUA would let me assign a default From address (or 
"personality" or "account") to use when I send a message to a 
particular recipient.  The MUA is in the best position to do this, 
and there is still the opportunity for the user to correct it.  There 
is no chance for this at the MLM.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
We adore chaos because we love to produce order.
                                  --M. C. Escher