Re: Make username optional in email addresses
Scott Antipa <[email protected]> Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:46:28 -1000
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.smtp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAG6nNWdZgn=maXtscsN3c_6HwJh_CnuqwfDq=LJEc97DTU54sQ@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============4985069496770100880== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000032aa1405f54ffecd" --00000000000032aa1405f54ffecd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was thinking this would be a single special email per domain, eg =E2=80= =9C [email protected]=E2=80=9D or whatever. Does that address the scaling pr= oblem? On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:25 PM John C Klensin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > --On Friday, February 17, 2023 17:30 -0500 tjw ietf > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Speaking as a simple dns person > > > > _role.example.com TXT [email protected] > > > > Is my fuel for the discussion > > Tim, > > There are at least three issues there (or with something similar > using SRV records). > > One, which may not apply to the smaller, more personal, domains > I think Scott is most concerned about, is that sometimes the > process of modifying a DNS record involves different people > and/or procedures than modifying an email delivery MTA. > > Second, it is typically going to means three DNS lookups to > identify an email address and where to send it, one for the > _role record as shown, one to get the MX record(s) for the > target domain, and, unless one gets lucky and the addresses of > the servers identified in the MX records show up as additional > information, a third (or more) to retrieve the addresses for > that server or servers. > > And third, as I think was mentioned in another context, every > time that someone has proposed something that might involve a > DNS entry per person rather than per host or pseudo-host, the > conclusion has been that it would not scale properly. Now > Scott's situation may be a bit different because I think he is > thinking about one email address per domain (or, if there were, > using the terminology of my earlier note, an "owner" and an > "all" one, two). That might therefore not trigger the scaling > problem. But, still... > > Whether one did it with a special name and DNS entry or a "role" > email address, I think the problem is the same" either the user > or the originating MUA needs to understand the naming or RR > convention and how to use it. Then, with Scott's proposal, the > delivery server and everything in between need to understand a > now-prohibited address and the delivery server needs to > understand what it means. With my "owner" suggestion, the > delivery server has to have an alias for the correct/target > address (not unlike the usual treatment for "Postmaster"); with > yours the address on the wire is actually the target address. > > And, Scott, please pay attention to Nathaniel's comment. Many > of us who "own" dedicated domains of which we are the only > important user use a multitude of email addresses to organize > materials, set up special security mechanisms, and so on. I > don't know about Nathaniel, but I use subaddress mechanisms and > probably use hundreds of different addresses. Some get special > post-delivery routing, others don't, and the rules change > frequently (in my case, it is rare for a week to go by without > my making at least one internal or routing or classification > change). For us, "[email protected]" or "[email protected]" > would be just one more of those specialized addresses to put in > the relevant tables, tables that we need to maintain anyway. > Keeping in mind that "@gmail" would almost certainly either have > to be rejected or treated as a synonym for something > Postmaster-like and that at least some of the cases of > @personaldomain.example would be used as Nathaniel and I use > them, it is not clear to me that there would actually be > significant demand for "@example.com" even if you could get it > adopted. > > best, > john > > --00000000000032aa1405f54ffecd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto">I was thinking this would be a single special email per d= omain, eg =E2=80=9C<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">catchall@example= .com</a>=E2=80=9D or whatever. Does that address the scaling problem?</div>= <div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">O= n Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:25 PM John C Klensin <<a href=3D"mailto:john-ie= [email protected]">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"= gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-= left:1ex"><br> <br> --On Friday, February 17, 2023 17:30 -0500 tjw ietf<br> <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">tjw.ietf@gmail.= com</a>> wrote:<br> <br> > Speaking as a simple dns person<br> > <br> > _<a href=3D"http://role.example.com" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_bla= nk">role.example.com</a> TXT <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target= =3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br> > <br> > Is my fuel for the discussion <br> <br> Tim,<br> <br> There are at least three issues there (or with something similar<br> using SRV records).=C2=A0 <br> <br> One, which may not apply to the smaller, more personal, domains<br> I think Scott is most concerned about, is that sometimes the<br> process of modifying a DNS record involves different people<br> and/or procedures than modifying an email delivery MTA.=C2=A0 <br> <br> Second, it is typically going to means three DNS lookups to<br> identify an email address and where to send it, one for the<br> _role record as shown, one to get the MX record(s) for the<br> target domain, and, unless one gets lucky and the addresses of<br> the servers identified in the MX records show up as additional<br> information, a third (or more) to retrieve the addresses for<br> that server or servers.<br> <br> And third, as I think was mentioned in another context, every<br> time that someone has proposed something that might involve a<br> DNS entry per person rather than per host or pseudo-host, the<br> conclusion has been that it would not scale properly.=C2=A0 Now<br> Scott's situation may be a bit different because I think he is<br> thinking about one email address per domain (or, if there were,<br> using the terminology of my earlier note, an "owner" and an<br> "all" one, two).=C2=A0 That might therefore not trigger the scali= ng<br> problem.=C2=A0 But, still...<br> <br> Whether one did it with a special name and DNS entry or a "role"<= br> email address, I think the problem is the same" either the user<br> or the originating MUA needs to understand the naming or RR<br> convention and how to use it.=C2=A0 Then, with Scott's proposal, the<br= > delivery server and everything in between need to understand a<br> now-prohibited address and the delivery server needs to<br> understand what it means.=C2=A0 With my=C2=A0 "owner" suggestion,= the<br> delivery server has to have an alias for the correct/target<br> address (not unlike the usual treatment for "Postmaster"); with<b= r> yours the address on the wire is actually the target address.<br> <br> And, Scott, please pay attention to Nathaniel's comment.=C2=A0 Many<br> of us who "own" dedicated domains of which we are the only<br> important user use a multitude of email addresses to organize<br> materials, set up special security mechanisms, and so on.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I<br> don't know about Nathaniel, but I use subaddress mechanisms and<br> probably use hundreds of different addresses.=C2=A0 Some get special<br> post-delivery routing, others don't, and the rules change<br> frequently (in my case, it is rare for a week to go by without<br> my making at least one internal or routing or classification<br> change).=C2=A0 For us, "<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D= "_blank">[email protected]</a>" or "<a href=3D"mailto:everyone@ex= ample.com" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>"<br> would be just one more of those specialized addresses to put in<br> the relevant tables, tables that we need to maintain anyway.<br> Keeping in mind that "@gmail" would almost certainly either have<= br> to be rejected or treated as a synonym for something<br> Postmaster-like and that at least some of the cases of<br> @personaldomain.example would be used as Nathaniel and I use<br> them, it is not clear to me that there would actually be<br> significant demand for "@<a href=3D"http://example.com" rel=3D"norefer= rer" target=3D"_blank">example.com</a>" even if you could get it<br> adopted.<br> <br> best,<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0john<br> <br> </blockquote></div></div> --00000000000032aa1405f54ffecd-- --===============4985069496770100880== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ietf-smtp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp --===============4985069496770100880==--