In order for
this to work, I need user agents which let me type the "+foo" in the from
and envelope sender address,
Chris, there's a huge difference between ``this is good'' and ``this is
the IETF's bailiwick.''
One piece of _advice_ that I give to MUA authors is to allow complete
configurability of every outgoing message, including Return-Path. But
I'm disgusted at the thought of the IETF _requiring_ this.
I need a final delivery agent which won't reject "+foo" addresses.
Surely every MTA supports aliases. If you don't like the user interface,
talk to the vendor, or switch to an MTA with a better user interface.
I think most current uses of "-" are simply naming hierarchy and not
subaddressing.
You didn't answer my question. Is it project-owner, or project+owner?
Are you going to prohibit mailing list names that match account names?
A uniform hierarchy doesn't have this problem.
[ requiring mailing lists to incorrectly accept messages from joe+37 ]
I don't consider this a big deal.
You are requiring a failure mode in a security mechanism.
You are also prohibiting a superior security mechanism.
This is unacceptable.
It is up to the mailing list owner to decide which messages he will
distribute and which ones he won't. If you don't like the security
mechanisms in current MLM software, you should complain to the MLM
authors, not the IETF.
Because a good standard needs complete formal grammar for what it's
discussing.
``Standard''? ``Good''?
If you weren't confusing content and encoding, you could simply say ``a
structured address consists of user-part, sep-char, and sub-part, where
user-part does not contain sep-char.''
---Dan
Set up a new mailing list in a single command. http://pobox.com/~djb/ezmlm.html