Re: MTS transparency and anonymity
2005-02-27 09:42:26
Bruce,
I think you're making this too difficult, by drilling too far down into
details at this stage.
if anonymous(_at_)[] doesn't quite work, there are similar alternatives
worth considering. among them are: anonymous(_at_)[0(_dot_)0(_dot_)0(_dot_)0],
anonymous(_at_)[127(_dot_)0(_dot_)0(_dot_)1], anonymous(_at_)[127(_dot_)255(_dot_)255(_dot_)255], anonymous(_at_)[::0],
and anonymous(_at_)[::1].
the problem with ""@[] is that, while valid syntax, the null local-part
provides another excuse for something to break. the null local-part is
not needed; it is sufficient if the domain is valid syntax but not a
DNS name.
also there might be some merit in being able to differentiate between
"anonymous" mail (where the sender chose to be anonymous) and mail from
an unknown sender (such as sent from a web form). so we could have
anonymous(_at_)[whatever] vs. unknown(_at_)[whatever](_dot_)
Keith
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, (continued)
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Laird Breyer
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity,
Keith Moore <=
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Bruce Lilly
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Frank Ellermann
- Re: MTS transparency and anonymity, Keith Moore
- Re: [0.0.0.0] (was: MTS transparency and anonymity), Claus Assmann
|
|
|