Another possibility is considering the combination of 2821 MAIL FROM
_and_ the originating IP together as an identity.
That's assuming that Users are going to see the originating IP. Which I've
pointed out they aren't, nor would they care to. "Hey Aruna, your new e-mail
address is
arunah206(_dot_)45(_dot_)235(_dot_)30(_at_)gctc-mst(_dot_)com(_dot_)" I'd hate
to see the IPv6
version.
Absurd, sure. Bear with me here, I'm only trying to head off related
absurdities and not singling Mike out specifically.
I suggested that the network address should be used as a tool to verify one
or more of the identities Marshall's identified, as all of the existing
forward DNS proposals do, and not be an identity in and of itself, especially
since no one identifies with network addresses. No fooling.
Also, fyi to Marshall: April 5th is ok for me but others might have Passover
as Phillip pointed out. In addition, Alan (I think) and myself have Good
Friday (April 9th) and Easter Monday (April 12th)(depending on the province
or profession) off.
--
PGP key (0x0AFA039E):
<http://www.pan-am.ca/consulting(_at_)pan-am(_dot_)ca(_dot_)asc>
What's a PGP Key? See <http://www.pan-am.ca/free.html>
GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. <http://vmyths.com/rant.cfm?id=401&page=4>