On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, John Levine wrote:
I think the WG was fine with sticking to the currently defined
experimental now, and now delay another year before starting the
experiment. Such rewrite rules could be added later by those who
actually care and run this and write software, so they can come back
to us with a proposal.
It sounds like you want to invent a way to canonicalize address local
parts.
I'm saying any such efforts were deferred in this document precisely
for the reasons you mention. The only rewrite rule I suggested was
the obvious lowercase issue - as it addresses a real and common problem.
The vast majority of the 10^9 users does in fact not use foo+bar
addressing.
It seems to me that the point of creating a standard is so that
systems can interoperate. If we know in advance that the systems
handling the majority of the world's mail are vanishingly unlikely
to implement something, what's the point?
Using that argumentation we can close down XMPP work too, since google
and facebook, the 99% of chat messages, are deviating from XMPP on
purpose. What's the point of writing more XMPP documents?
Here, I think we agree. In a partitioned mail system (which is not
limited to the largest ones), all of the partitions would have to
export all the keys to one monolithic database.
You know, once in a while I receive an unknown IKE vendorid, which is
usually an md5 or sha1 hash. I throw it into google and get a response
within 1 second. I think we're okay letting these people decide how to
do their large data provisioning. You can't say these email providers
have 10^9 users with hundreds of datacenters but don't know how to deal
with Big Data.
Paul