Actually, I find the idea of "mail cookie" rather interesting, it creates
standard way for whitelist-like verification and it also solves the
problem with displaying address on the website to be used by your
customers to send email immediatly but not necessarily be able to get
collected and used by spammers in the future. I personally had somewhat
similar idea with using public key embedded in the email address.
And while need of faster solution does exist, we should not discurd solutions
that require more time. Also do note that everything changes, we had HTML
1.0, then 2.0, 3.0, etc all not being entirely compatible with each
other. That email has survived for so long with so few changes is at best
surprising. But serious changes do take long long time to implement and
go from development to production to wide acceptance so if long term
solutions is adapted we need to think about recomendation for short-term
solutions as well, in fact probably both short-term and long-term plans
should discussed at the same time and not considered in opposition to each
other.
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Bob Wyman wrote:
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
As the experiment just proved: Not even this ASRG mailing
list can cope with it...
Your experiment proves nothing other than that this mailing list
software works as advertised. When you registered for the mailing list,
you told it the email address that you would use when sending messages.
The address you gave it did not include the key, thus, your message was
put in the approval queue. I haven't tested it, but I wouldn't be
surprised if things would have worked well if you had registered as
"hadmut+(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)(_at_)danisch(_dot_)de" rather than as
simply "hadmut(_at_)danisch(_dot_)de".
In any case, this particular problem only happens when the
receiving software has implemented a white list (as this mailing list
software does) and if you have inserted the signature into the "FROM"
field. The same problem will not happen, however, if you leave your FROM
field as your base address (no signature) and only insert the signature
into the "Reply-To" field.
If this message reaches the list, it will prove that a signature
embedded in the reply-to field does not interfere with mailing
processing. Since I've modified the reply-to heading for this mail to
include a "signature." Many people will, in fact, be able to benefit
immediately from single-user addresses. One will simply need to avoid
supplying such addresses to mailing lists or users of systems that don't
support the things. This is not ideal, but it is better than waiting for
a few years for new headers to be supported broadly.
bob wyman
-----Original Message-----
From: Hadmut Danisch [mailto:hadmut(_at_)danisch(_dot_)de]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 4:41 PM
To: Bob Wyman
Cc: hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7(_at_)danisch(_dot_)de;
asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Mail Cookies Was: Single-User Addresses
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 04:33:25PM -0500, Bob Wyman wrote:
Disagree if you wish. While "many" don't, "many" do... For
instance,
my mail server and client (Outlook Express) had no problem receiving
the mail you sent with a From field that looked like:
From: hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7(_at_)danisch(_dot_)de
[mailto:hadmut+45852e998cdb18c752c9d9b6cf77aef7(_at_)danisch(_dot_)de]
Thus, while some servers and clients may have problems, I can
assure
you that many people are able to handle single-user emails today.
Additionally, it is a fairly small change to existing systems to have
them adopt the existing convention of ignoring text between the "+"
and "@" symbols.
As the experiment just proved: Not even this ASRG mailing list can
cope with it...
Hadmut
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg