Re: New draft, new idea

At 09:41 04/02/05 -0800, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

>At 12:05 AM -0500 2/5/04, John Cowan wrote:
>>In addition,
>>if an email-address-assigner screws up and hands out the same displayedLHS
>>twice, we may have two mailboxes that appear to have the same address
>>at the MUA level.
>
>Not at all. The display name has no connection to the mailbox name 
>anywhere other than in the MUA. Therefore, two people at ccil.org could 
>say the display name for their two different mailboxes is "Jose'". The 
>display is local to the MUA reading the message.

Well, in theory, this is true. However, as far as I understand, the
Address-map headers and therefore these mappings travel from one
MUA to another. So conflicts would inevitably arise, either by having
the MUA keep two mappings with the same display LHS but different
ascii addresses (which would sooner or later have the wrong thing
sent to the wrong mailbox because the user cannot distinguish
these two), or by the MUA saying "You've got mail. By the way,
there is an Address-map header for =Jose'@example.com= different
from the one I already have, should I overwrite the mapping?".

Neither alternative sounds good to me at all.


Regards,    Martin.