I guess I am confused as to why I would want to support either key discovery or distribution for the (500million - 1) versions of my email address that I don't use.
My mail agent only generates one version of my from address. I only convey one version in written, oral, and online forms of distribution. I am perfectly happy if it is not possible to discover the 500million-1 variants of my email address that I don't use or exercise but that my mail provider chooses to treat as equivalent. Frankly if it was possible, I would write mail filters to drop those variants on receipt, because they clearly indicate some use of my email address that I did not endorse. For my uses, straight hashing of the form of my address you are presented with is all I want. To be honest, I would consider it an undesirable feature to support the versions of my address that I don't use. Enabling the simple direct function of key retrieval for the addresses we use, in a ubiquitous way would be very powerful. We should leave for future study the issue of key retrieval for the addresses we don't use. dougm On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Sean Leonard <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2015, at 10:23 AM, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> But I guess I could live with it if the consensus moves this way, but > to > >>> me that seems only because I know the MUST NOT will be violated. > > > >> At first I bristled at John's proposed change, but he's right that RFC > 5321 is completely clear on this topic, and it is a full standard. And, > yes, lots of SMTP applications probably violate the MUST NOT as well, but > that doesn't change it. > > > > In my experience, people who write mail software understand the opaque > mailbox rule, and try pretty hard to follow it. Some cheat and do case > folding to match Bob@domain to BOB@domain, but I can't think of any that > match bob+foo@domain or b.ob@domain to bob@domain, other than the MTA > that actually knows what the addresses mean. > > Gmail does not recognize dots as distinguishable characters within > usernames (mailboxes). > > See > https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10313?hl=en > > Therefore [email protected], [email protected], and > [email protected] are equivalent. > > (It also does case folding.) > > That would be a 500+ million mailbox software example... > > Sean > > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane > -- DougM at Work
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
