[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-arun-ncc-smtp-02.txt

2005-04-16 04:26:32

On Sat April 16 2005 05:49, Arun Sankar wrote:

Basically, we have aliases for our convenience, so that we do not end up 
typing a huge number of mail-ids.

No, mailing lists and aliases exist for administrative reasons, not for
the convenience of senders.

When we have to do [...] this has 
to the other person.

More vague hand-waving; still no concrete example of a real problem. 

Yes, this would have a few implimentational issues 

For crying out loud, get and use a spelling checker.

Again the idea is not to force this feature on anybody but allow 
it as an option to anybody who wants to use it. Encrypting each message 
in every hop is similar.

Your scheme requires full implementation to "work".  Encryption is
not performed "in every hop", it is an end-to-end process -- see
RFCs 1847, 2480, 2634, and 3156.

Your scheme is incompatible with SMTP, per RFC 2821 section 3.10:

   An important mail facility is a mechanism for multi-destination
   delivery of a single message, by transforming (or "expanding" or
   "exploding") a pseudo-mailbox address into a list of destination
   mailbox addresses.  When a message is sent to such a pseudo-mailbox
   (sometimes called an "exploder"), copies are forwarded or
   redistributed to each mailbox in the expanded list.  Servers SHOULD
   simply utilize the addresses on the list; application of heuristics
   or other matching rules to eliminate some addresses, such as that of
   the originator, is strongly discouraged.

Note in particular that last sentence, which applies to the matching
rules in your proposed scheme.