This seems to be a red herring to me. I did not suggest that the MTA change its behavior at all. How that issue gets conflated with what I thought we were talking about is beyond me. Maybe someone can explain.
I request that I be able to publish, and have others lookup the form of my address that I use. Given that the fuzzy matching rules are receiver specific, I find it hard to believe that senders are somehow algorithmically generating variants of my email. But as I noted, if any exist that randomly transform the from address they receive, I am fine with having validation fail. I see this potential failure scenario to be miniscule, or at least smaller than false positive errors by spam filters. dougm On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:30 PM, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > I consider it undesirable to publish keys for whatever variants my provider >> chooses to support for their own reasons. Tomorrow they might decide (for >> their own reasons) to equate other transformations of the string. >> > > MTAs have been doing fuzzy matching on local-parts for over 30 years. It's > a little late to tell them not to do it. > > > Regards, > John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. > -- DougM at Work
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
