spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: The pretty name

2004-10-01 12:27:39
[Stephane Bortzmeyer]
Are you pulling our leg? Because, if you are serious, it seems you did
not think a lot about the consequences (what about mailing lists,
should every message on that list begin "From: owner-spf-discuss"?)

I already thought of mailing lists, and said so in previous messages.
Yes, having a consistent start to the pretty name of the sender is a
minor problem. But reply-to can be modified to contain the list and
the original sender.

Also, mailing lists are very much a techie-centric phenomenon. A huge
precentage of email users do not use mailing lists at all, and never
will. I'm thinking of my grandma here, and some of the less-educated
users where I work.

Other than mailing lists, what legitimate mail functions would such
rewriting behavior break?

I love the "other than mailing lists". What about roaming users? Do
you want to force them to use a tunnel back home?

Huh? SPFv1 already requires roaming users to connect back home with an
authenticated channel. My idea presumes the existence of a 2821.from
authentication scheme like SPFv1.

Please think harder.

Quite a few people have come back at me with not-so-polite comments
like this, yet not a singe one of those people has given me an example
other than mailing lists and forwarding. We already have problems with
these things in the SPFv1 world. I do not think the problems that
would be added by my rewriting idea are that much greater. The
2822.from pretty name and reply-to header can be modified do
ameliorate a lot of the issues.

-- 
   RPM
=========================
All problems can be solved by diplomacy, but violence and treachery
are equally effective, and more fun.
      -Anonymous