[IMXPwg] Re: Getting IMXP working group going

Graham Klyne GK@Dial.pipex.com
Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:58:39 +0100

At 12:09 PM 9/19/00 -0700, Marshall Rose wrote:
>i misspoke on darren's suggestion. what he wanted was this: if someone is
>allowed to attach as fred@example.com, then they should also be allowed to
>attach as fred+wb@example.com.

It was locking in '+' syntax, or any other, that I was reacting against 
(see below)

>the access control service already allows wildcarding.

As I recall, it's very limited;  there's no provision for even basic 
pattern matching within the local part, that I recall.

>the issue is to let users have applications that attach to different "ports"
>without having to configure each one seperately.

This principle is fine.  I just don't think we should assume a particular 
"port" syntax.

I was thinking of a possibly two-step approach:
(a) define the root mailbox name, e.g. fred@example.com
(b) define a mailbox pattern for alternative ports, e.g. fred+*@example.com

Operationally, it's slightly more clunky than just registering 
fred@example.com, but I think the detail of the extra step could be hidden 
behind a local administrative interface.

>so, if this is okay, you want the syntax to be what the fax wg suggested?
>fine by me. what RFC should i look at?

I think your after RFC 2303/2304 (from memory) -- but my point is to not 
tie it to *any* specific syntax.  (But if you really must fix the syntax, 
then an RFC-defined syntax seems a better bet.)


Graham Klyne