On 1 Aug 1997, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
Date: 1 Aug 1997 18:33:04 -0000
From: D. J. Bernstein <djb(_at_)koobera(_dot_)math(_dot_)uic(_dot_)edu>
If agents wish to constrain from addresses to fight spoofing or whatever but
allow subaddress editing, they can't do it because there is no uniformity of
subadressing.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The agent can rely on local configuration to
decide which addresses are permitted for each user.
"can" does not mean it is the best way.
...
Standarizing things has benefits and costs.
But standardizing user interfaces, no matter how beneficial, is none of
the IETF's business.
Nonsense. The IETF has zillions of standards that effect user interface.
How 822 heaers and domain names and IP addresses are formed and parsed for
example. Although, from another point of view, these are actually standards
for the wire format. Just as a "+" separator for subaddressing would, in
principle, only effect the wire format. A UI could have separate text boxes
for the pieces of the local part, for example.
I don't know where you get this idea that IETF standards are requirements.
What are you talking about? I said ``document... requiring that all MTAs
and LDAs work the same way.''
We'rem talking about an effort to create a standard for email subaddressing.
---Dan
Donald
=====================================================================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1 508-287-4877(tel) dee(_at_)cybercash(_dot_)com
318 Acton Street +1 508-371-7148(fax)
dee(_at_)world(_dot_)std(_dot_)com
Carlisle, MA 01741 USA +1 703-620-4200(main office, Reston, VA)
http://www.cybercash.com http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html