ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com <ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
wrote:
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it>
Section 4.1.1.2 additionally states that "The reverse-path consists of
the sender mailbox", not a variation thereof. That wording apparently
bans using time-varying tags, unless we reinterpret BATV as a
redistribution service for ephemeral ad-hoc lists, in the sense of
section 3.9.2 (but beware poor subscription policies.) A rather
cumbersome way to standardize things.
OK, I have to admit I hadn't thought of or noticed this conflict. As a
practical matter there are already an abundance of schemes that violated
the letter, if not the intent, of this language: SRS and VERP immediately
come to mind. I therefore wonder if this isn't something we ought to
consider "relaxing" in 2821bis.
Though it's still possible to do substantive changes to 2821bis, since
the IESG hasn't acted on it, I'm not sure there's any need. After all,
"mailbox" means whatever 2821bis chooses to mean by it, and that would
seem to be defined in 2.3.11:
"
" As used in this specification, an "address" is a character string
" that identifies a user to whom mail will be sent or a location into
" which mail will be deposited. The term "mailbox" refers to that
" depository. The two terms are typically used interchangeably unless
" the distinction between the location in which mail is placed (the
" mailbox) and a reference to it (the address) is important. An
" address normally consists of user and domain specifications. The
" standard mailbox naming convention is defined to be
" "local-part(_at_)domain"; contemporary usage permits a much broader set of
" applications than simple "user names". Consequently, and due to a
" long history of problems when intermediate hosts have attempted to
" optimize transport by modifying them, the local-part MUST be
" interpreted and assigned semantics only by the host specified in the
" domain part of the address.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>