![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Keith Moore writes: | at least in those days, gateway proponents didn't insist that people | shouldn't include email addresses in the bodies of their messages. You miss the point that including "GRECO::MARYK" as an email address in a USENET message is about as useful as including 10.0.0.26 in an IP header -- the local meaning is essentially unusable to a non-local recipient. Nobody really constrains protocols from carrying a local IP address around any more than anyone constrains from putting local addresses into a text message. It's just that communicating by naively replying to such an embedded address is unlikely to work. RFC-822 was a great leap forward for embedding a global namespace into text messages, and I am pleased to say that even my own RFC-822 address works fine at UKY, despite my NAT stance. :-) There needs to be an RFC-822 for identifying IP-packet-receivers independtly from actual network topology analogous to the way that identified mailboxes independtly from actual network topology (hey, consider that you even may have had your mail cross different types of small-i internet when sending mail to places like foo at mitvma.mit.edu!). Sean.
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.