I'm sorry, I thought you we're making a point other than the "roaming
user"
issue.
I think he was, in his original message. Let's take my address,
wfenner(_at_)att(_dot_)com(_dot_)
Whats wrong with "fenner(_at_)research(_dot_)att(_dot_)com"?
Out of 66971 email addresses @att.com, there are 135
incoming mail servers (some of which are departmental servers which have
further subdivisions into incoming servers). There are also external
forwardings to 390 other domains.
Right now, there is no particular policy about outgoing mail.
In which case, it will be difficult to express it in a MARID assertion
(except as some kind of wildcard, or by providing per-user exceptions as
suggested). The reasons why such a messes of confused authority have been
allowed to develop are probably fascinating, and will probably continue to
contribute to damage to the value of the organisations email system.
Clearly - if you're going to publish a policy, you'll have to have one.
I don't know what proportion of Internet mail originates on systems with
the kind of problems outlined, with the poor prospects of fixing that you
suggest. I suspect it's lower than you might think. I'm all for
extensibility and flexibility, but the bigger the MARID language becomes,
the higher the cost for *all* participants.
The question then becomes: how much of the costs of example.com's broken
bureaucracy do we shift to the rest of the MARID community?
Regards,
JK