On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Joe Kelsey wrote:
In this case he has correctly analyzed the broken proposal of Newman as
being an attempt to make the CMU/Innosoft subaddress scheme a global
requirement simply for the perceived benefit of one administrator who
doesn't want to support what user's really want to do.
Guessing other people's motives is always a dubious venture, and both Dan
and you have guessed incorrectly. My motives are as follows:
(1) I like subaddressing and think others would like it as well.
(2) Quality MUA interfaces for subaddressing can't be built without a
standard since it requires cooperation between MUA and the final delivery
agent (which usually are on different hosts).
(3) Certain spam-limitation efforts on MLMs make the use of subaddresses
for subscriptions a real pain.
(4) I like to write standards for the benefit of the community. I also
noted that this would benefit my employeer, but that has more impact on
my personal vs. work time allocation then anything else. This is a
personal proposal -- not an Innosoft or CMU proposal.
So I wrote a _first rough draft_ of a standard based on personal
experience with the intent to address (1)-(3). I brought the rough draft
forward for public comment so it can be refined to a level suitable for
standardization, if possible.
The result is that I've learned a lot more about how people use
subaddresses and will make substantial revisions in the next draft. Now
can we please end the confrontational garbage and stick with technical
issues?
- Chris