RE: [Asrg] Random thought

[Jason Hihn <jhihn@paytimepayroll.com>]

So close, yet so far. See interjected comments

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sauer, Damon [mailto:Damon.Sauer@BellSouth.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:03 PM
> To: 'Jason Hihn'; ASRG
> Subject: RE: [Asrg] Random thought
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Hihn [mailto:jhihn@paytimepayroll.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:42 AM
> To: ASRG
> Subject: [Asrg] Random thought
>
>
....
> Comments?
>
>
>  I think this could also be accomplished using an X-headers if you are not
> trying to authenticate the address at the gateway.
> This would be an administrative nightmare for x500 and Microsoft
> Exchange as
> this is not programmatic and each [bucket] would have to be added
> manually.
> One the other hand, I do not see an issue with writing a script that would
> allow the user to assign themselves [buckets] but their email
> would not work
> until the buckets were defined
>  I think that this is an interesting approach and could likely be
> implemented right away.

Indeed. The change is small, particularly of you rely on client-side
filtering alone.
Server-side you need only to trim [whatever] off the email for finding out
who to deliver to. A better implementation would be to have the server place
it in a folder on the server until retrieval.

>  I would start by writing an instruction on how each user can add rules to
> their Microsoft Outlook client that would say, if TO: is user[bucket] then
> place in X folder.

Exactly! But I'd still prefer the server to do it because as I've stated
before, Joe Blow knows nothing of filters.

> I would set up an internal web page to define the buckets and
> programmatically add these as secondary addresses to the users
> address list
> via ldap mods.

Easily done, and relatively user-friendly

> I would set aside several thousands of dollars to replace
> business cards and
> stationary.
> I would have to define rules to remove old [bucket] addresses as they are
> abandoned because spammers finally figured out what the address was.

Now you're just getting crazy.

>  Hey, wouldn't it just be easier to assign multiple SMTP addresses?

We do, but the ad-hoc nature is key. "Assigning multiple SMPT addresses"
pins you down to a rather fixed list, and that's easy for a spammer to lock
on to, and that's not what I want. I go to great lengths to protect my email
addresses, but I always wind up getting on lists, then getting off is
impossible.

>  You see where I am going with this?

No.


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg