[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Closing out all other issues in draft-klensin-2821bis

2008-02-16 11:57:37


Section 3.9.2 "List" is different in rfc2821bis-0N (0N>= 03)
w.r.t the current rfc2821. The added final note,
distinguishing alias expansion and forwarding, would be
correct if that subsection were named "Forwarding".
   The forwarding model is tricky, and various
theories about when one should, and should not, change envelope
addresses --and how to respond when others do it-- to counter
spam and other bad behavior make it worse.

As I see that carefully set up mailing lists work quite well, while it is rather impossible to configure and maintain alias expansions, I think the crux can be easily identified in that _key difference_. I just would have liked that point to be clearly visible by every reader, without making any technical change, nor altering any formal specification. (As Frank said, nothing's wrong if a mailing list has only one member.)

I believe that a major piece of work is required in this area,
probably of the variety that requires a working group rather
than a discussion of a draft that is supposed to reflect tuning
improvements to work done many years ago that reflected current
and preferred practice at the time.

I share your belief, that's why I was hoping the new SMTP standard would have somehow taken into account existing and future work on that subject.

  Trying to "patch" 2821bis,
especially under the constraints of advancing to Draft Standard
and post-last-call, is just not going to do it, either
procedurally or technically.

I see. I apologize again for my ignorance about bureaucratic intricacies.

I would suggest --again, speaking only as an individual
contributor-- what has been suggested to others [...]

Thank you very much for explaining those points once more