On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 18:19:43 -0500
David W Tamkin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> JCL wrote:
>> Which isn't quite coopting the list name ala say my subscribing to
>> this list as: email@example.com
> Not the second-worst-equals-good argument again.
firstname.lastname@example.org has direct and obvious possibilities for
confusion by others. email@example.com has relatively minimal
possibilities for confusion by others.
> Couldn't you use firstname.lastname@example.org, or since the domain is yours,
Certainly, and both could be argued as better. But I'm not arguing
relative preference but acceptability. I'd agree that
<listname>@other.domain is a Bad And Rude Thing, but
FOO-<listname>@other.domain while not necessarily the absolute best
approach is quite acceptable and recommendable.
What's missing is ISPs making the very trivial and inexpensive (ie no
scalability or load concerns tho some tech support/held_desk costs) MTA
config changes to support plus addressing generically for all their
> If what happened to me was a fluke, consider this variant: you j01n a
> list as email@example.com or you(+/-)firstname.lastname@example.org. Someone else
> posts, and you send a private reply under your membership address; the
> other person filters for the list on To: or Cc: and, finding it in the
> folder for the list, mistakes it for a list post, and (a) chews you
> out for publicizing personal matters, (b) replies to the list with
> quotes from your private message, or (c) posts something else to the
> list under the assumption that everybody else has read your message.
There's really not much i can say to that other than that I don't
consider it a problem worth considering. There are enough clues in the
sequence to guide correct response, misdirecting the reply back to the
list requires conscious and deliberate addition of the list to the
distribution list, and on general principle a poster is ALWAYS fully
culpable for any increases he makes in a messages distribution.
> There is no argument in favor of using the exact name of the list.
Perhaps. When used as a plus address I don't consider the arguments
against damning, but then I also just don't care that much about the
plus addressing case that much.
> Absolutely. I'd do it myself were it not for other impediments.
> However, nobody holds a gun to your head to use the list's name
> verbatim. Were I still an active list manager, I would not allow such
> a su65cription. In 1996 I'd have considered a j01n request from
> email@example.com either an attempt to slip an exploder onto the
> list without making arrangements first or one to post disruptively,
> and I'd have told the sender to get lost. In 2002 I'd consider that
> [or one from firstname.lastname@example.org, or from
> email@example.com in case of qmail] an honest but short-sighted
> attempt at facilitating mail sorting and would respond that the
> applicant had to select some less literal designator [and I'd supply a
> suggestion or too, just as I proposed "listmgrs" above] and would then
> be welcome to join the list.
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
firstname.lastname@example.org He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.