Re: [yam] Issue #10: RFC 5321 3.9: add tiny subsection

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

SM wrote:
> There is some discussion about information disclosure in Section 7.  
> Please don't read this as meaning that the section should be or not be 
> changed.

FWIW, assuming the definition of forwarding has been amended, issues 
related to section 3.9 could be addressed there like so:

  7.x Privacy violations on forwarding

  Since mailbox addresses are Personally Identifiable Information,
  a.k.a. Personal Data, applications SHOULD track additions to aliases
  and lists used in forwarding as described in section 3.9, possibly
  retaining evidence of mailboxes' owners consent. The data model
  SHOULD be designed so as to allow meaningful write-access control.

That's not meant to be taken literally, just the idea.

>> You mean SPF authorization?
> 
> I mean authorization in general terms.

Section 7.1 castigates various authentication schemes, but does not 
mention that forwarders may need to tweak their configuration options 
or make specific arrangements in order to avoid rejections.