Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks
2004-07-25 21:29:21
regarding gateways - in general the job of the gateway is to preserve
the semantics of the original message into the destination
environment.
the job of the gateway is NOT to correct errors in the original
message.
Well, that's an issue with the RFC 2821 text, which ought to be up for
review Real Soon Now. It seems that the intent of RFC 2821 is that
e.g.
in the case of an X.400 to Internet mail gateway, the address on the
Internet side should be a valid and usable Internet address.
it's pretty difficult to write useful general specifications for
gateway behavior. it's hard enough to write specifications for a
specific case like X.400 to Internet mail. trying to make every bit of
RFC 2821bis apply to gateways is probably a fool's errand.
we don't expect native MUAs to go to great lengths to prevent invalid
or unusable addresses from appearing messages. why should we impose
this burden on gateways?
when gateways have to translate addresses from one format to another
(as they do between X.400 and internet mail), they should make sure
that the resulting addresses are valid syntax. this is just sanity
checking. the reason it's necessary is that there are usually some
addresses that cannot be translated. but that's not the same thing as
ensuring that the address is valid.
tcreating a new TLD to indicate an invalid address is probably a bad
idea even within Usenet. rather than trying to fix internet mail to
accommodate a bad idea in Usenet, maybe the Usenet people need to come
up with a better idea.
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- RE: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks,
Keith Moore <=
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Keith Moore
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly |
Next by Date: |
Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey |
Previous by Thread: |
Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Bruce Lilly |
Next by Thread: |
Re: Mandatory From field, anonymity, and hacks, Charles Lindsey |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|