[Top] [All Lists]

Re: fix forwarding: sect. 3.9 of draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

2008-01-30 01:02:47

Frank Ellermann wrote:
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
| We classify such a pseudo-mailbox as an "alias and similar | forwarding" or a "list", depending upon the expansion rules.

No "we" style in 2821 so far.  I don't get this classification,
what's the idea here ?  In essence you can have "redistribution"
(list), local aliases, or forwarding (non-local aliases).

I tried to minimize the changes to the original text. Perhaps I've been too lazy. I also don't like that classification, and the resulting text conceives two cases with no other reason than current practices showing that mailing list work quite better than aliases. I also agree that we might get ready of the term "pseudo-mailbox".

Some criteria that I'd deem relevant for classifying a forwarding arrangement are as follows:

* the arrangement has been configured manually / automatically
* if automatic, any opt-in evidence (e.g. double check, IP)
* an alias is meant for non-disclosure / is an address update
* expansion is 1-1 / 1-many

That might suggest how to exert administrative control appropriately. However, encouraging servers to keep track of any opt-in evidence or other forwarding arrangement reasons would probably be in vain.

I'll answer your other comments during the next days, hoping that there will be some more involvement meanwhile. The current rfc2821bis-06 defines "alias" as a pseudo-mailbox subject to simplistic (broken) expansion, so I think this classification is the most important point.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>