Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email addresses
tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 17 February 2023 22:30 UTC
Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA29FC15270B for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 14:30:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MN5XLNzRQc8Q for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 14:30:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x131.google.com (mail-il1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7777BC1516F8 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 14:30:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x131.google.com with SMTP id j11so881324ilf.0 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 14:30:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=VzMUTmGHLc8h+B95Zj//nusMrFBWSBw475hViR0htmk=; b=J3VdDwaaUpDO2bfZcnmdY4p4N0TQ7ImlsyvD8qQew0ZGaKcQi8jT//fnzJgzzgEuPT LI+Dtekb1J70ZJN6ptSNfI07+IbDrYFconMtjVg+NcO7SyRL9/HyLlJN0gNTjd8oe/WI bK4TlZcPjevGeWuNZbp1t7AzjGkgLzZ1sGrEHuFi+c4WdlbwswWreDfCUIkvQINnU1ne 3VYG6rTPjOtBkrgS2ZM9TGqg+QlWGameA3Gl0LOiocdJOMlTyKpvkGoZ9yGpRv9sYJ23 RrSCoA0Iw8i4ZdvRDwmenRj0VQbn1StMh5poId8A5Zd21PHmxjYfEoTFoSWQ8e3OveUt xoww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VzMUTmGHLc8h+B95Zj//nusMrFBWSBw475hViR0htmk=; b=PK0lmH+8rHi287NNLwU9sdO4ZLSbYlcLDVeydpfUNns4A80Q8Ts/nybHr/qt2ZO8Mw dMWZScZsn0zItxwIOHH1T2oBaVnS3fDQnz/HoZh4t6ZGPDwREVicIrqj293Ly2jbFwai 1TZf4X7tLaOV+8Hcdt5ez9ri3j5PxE64g/uS+bLRrdUUoIi0LvQQDUNt4ylystVfVMEc 5j4Wwx4Z2d76VrkOBX8zf9vM3h+jceHku+8aPJuBTI5d1aXEo3oXEhHb2nrLQsRRWl5C c6ijyMIhPbG6lZky3dsJ3xfzY/OYqpKSRZ5Um7HCu1vcfTyvgx9UMZl4K77+tOycfNG7 xvVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKX7Llt1ERHq7FwK6dyk8D5NgiucDjrTvLQoVLh36LXFm1Y+B/6a e2iQkHjk5QkPh0AwkqHs4ZbL6Wg8+3t9yw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/HfjppyesKrOgptlHHvQrOb1vLbyqIgzdK0N8AFrwZ/8sWR4218s+JeCwN73LpnlM52N/H+Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:154c:b0:315:29c7:49a8 with SMTP id j12-20020a056e02154c00b0031529c749a8mr2503278ilu.14.1676673026288; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 14:30:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (57-88-181-166.mobile.uscc.net. [166.181.88.57]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s4-20020a056e02216400b00315d1153ffcsm824383ilv.65.2023.02.17.14.30.25 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Feb 2023 14:30:25 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 17:30:14 -0500
Message-Id: <76D0BF6D-7DE1-41FF-B41D-DB078A46BAD6@gmail.com>
References: <00442A7D2E63E30765843D13@PSB>
Cc: Russ Allbery <eagle@eyrie.org>, Scott Antipa <scottantipa@gmail.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <00442A7D2E63E30765843D13@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (20D67)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/oVnttpeLRXkmowIdz1FlvohXAlg>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email addresses
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:30:31 -0000
Speaking as a simple dns person _role.example.com TXT tjw.ietf@gmail.com Is my fuel for the discussion Tim Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 17, 2023, at 17:26, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: > > Russ, > > At least IMO, excellent explanation. > > Scott, > > If I understand what you are trying to accomplish, there is > another way it could be done without any of the disruptions or > complexities Russ and Dave identified. Define a special "role" > address akin to "Postmaster" (in RFC 5321), the suggestions of > RFC 763, or the more detailed specification and useful analysis > in RFC 2142. Give it a mnemonic name with reasonable odds of > not being confused with a conventional user name, e.g., > "EveryoneAt" or "AllUsersAt". Then see if you can persuade > people running SMTP Servers for domains of interest to treat > those role addresses as distribution addresses for all such > users (or any group of users they might select -- I'm thinking > about local opt-out rules here). > > That would give you something almost completely non-disruptive. > It would conform to existing syntax rules and would did not > require any changes in existing mail protocols or to systems > sending or relaying mail messages. Receiving systems that got > such a message would either handle as you specify, treat it as > undeliverable, of, if the sender were unlucky, deliver it to a > mailbox of that name (the reason for "not being confused" above > -- I wouldn't want to use "alice" or "bob" for that address > convention. If you found yourself getting any traction at all, > I'd recommend a really short RFC updating RFC 2142 to include > this additional type of name and the name itself and have > trouble imagining anyone violently objecting. > > If there is some reason to not do that, I believe your document > is probably in need of a section explaining what it is. > > best, > john > > > > > --On Friday, February 17, 2023 13:45 -0800 Russ Allbery > <eagle@eyrie.org> wrote: > >> Scott Antipa <scottantipa@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> As Dave mentioned to me, this is of course a gigantic change >>> which would require changes to all the parsers out there in >>> the wild. I'm not expecting to just get a thumbs up here >>> immediately. But I'd like to spark a conversation and get >>> feedback. >> >> Talking to standards bodies is often depressing since mostly >> they tell you all the things your idea will break. :) >> >> I think there are two ways of interpreting your idea. One is >> to provide some sort of address-book lookup feature that would >> allow people to use bare domains in email clients, and the >> email client would then convert that to a traditional email >> message. I have no strong opinions about that; as a purely >> client feature, it would have no affect on the protocol. It's >> "just" a UI change to email clients from the perspective of >> the email standards such as SMTP, although there would >> probably need to be some ancillary standards defined around it >> for how email clients should convert domain names into email >> addresses. >> >> The other way is to interpret the proposal as a proposal for a >> syntax change to the email address in the SMTP and email >> message format protocols. I'm not sure there's much feedback >> people are going to be able to give you on that version of >> your proposal other than "making this significant of a change >> to email protocols is effectively impossible." >> >> The installed base of software that parses and manipulates >> email messages is almost undescribably huge, and this sort of >> fundamental syntax change will break a large amount of it. >> Most of it is never updated even to deal with major ongoing >> issues when the changes are minor. This sort of very >> fundamental change to a basic syntax element seems essentially >> certain to stall out at a very small percentage of the >> software in use, and thus never become usable in practice. >> >> It's going to be vastly easier to work with the existing email >> address syntax, using one of the short email patterns you >> already see today (me@bobsmith.com or mail@bobsmith.com or >> whatever). >> >> Email message format is unusually difficult to modify in this >> sort of way even by the standards of IETF protocols because >> it's a network store and forward protocol rather than a >> point-to-point protocol. You can't negotiate a new message >> format between just the sender and the recipient; every >> intermediate server through which the message passes has an >> opinion about the syntax of the email address. So even if you >> could change SMTP to support this format by introducing a new >> version similar to what HTTP did with HTTP/2 (and it would >> require that level of effort to change the syntax of the email >> address, since it's so foundational), you still can't >> practically change the message format without introducing a >> truly enormous gatewaying and down-conversion problem. >> >> I think a comparable change would be MIME, which introduced >> structured email and non-ASCII character sets, and that change >> took decades to be reliably usable (one could argue that it's >> still not 100% reliable) despite a use case that was necessary >> to solve for email to continue to be relevant at all. And in >> a way this change as stated would be even more disruptive than >> the introduction of MIME, since MIME remained >> backward-compatible in header formats (although old software >> would see encoded nonsense in some cases). > > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-smtp mailing list > ietf-smtp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
- [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email addre… Scott Antipa
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Scott Antipa
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Russ Allbery
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Russ Allbery
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… tjw ietf
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Scott Antipa
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Nathaniel Borenstein
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Paul Smith
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Scott Antipa
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Valdis Kl ē tnieks
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Peter J. Holzer
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Steffen Nurpmeso
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Scott Antipa
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Scott Antipa
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Make username optional in email a… Paul Smith