I wrote:
From a purely theoretical point of view, the goal of using
supplemental addresses is to get people to use as many different
addresses as possible ...
... although in reality this does not take place
Brian wrote:
Mmm, misses the point eh.
Not at all. In practice, supplemental addresses do proliferate, but there
will be "communities" of correspondents that naturally become dependent on
using a shared address, i. e. those to whom I share a supplemental address
rightfully should keep using it going forward, as opposed to the system
"forcing" them to a different address. In other words, it's beneficial to
employ as many addresses as possible, but no more than that.
Brian wrote:
... I've come to appreciate much more the need for simple,
robust filters, whether they are targeted for client machines or SMEs.
And my point is that were you to employ the additional dimension of
supplemental addresses, which can be implemented as a transparent-to-the-user
enhancement, the overall performance of your filter would improve. The rate
of false positives, however small, would decrease. The processing time per
message would also decrease with no change in the level of effectiveness, and
there are forensic benefits to exposing things that cannot be seen, but which
exist, such as the sharing of your address.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg