In article <379664BC.EA0A461F@netscape.com>,
Bruce Steinback <laser@sunroof.eng.sun.com> wrote:
>> >For any Internet Service Provider, support for some way of recognizing
>> >custom domains (e.g. steinback.com) is going to be vital - a lot of
>> >individuals have them, and it's only likely to continue - even expand.
>> >
>> >As Stuart Lynne mentioned, usage of '*' in LDAP entries to be searched
>> >is not a good idea, as the asterix is a special character. For that
>> >reason, I believe that just using the @(domain) is appropriate.
>>
>> I think I mentioned that I'm considering trying a different approach for
>> this. Instead of searching for an entry with the special address (i.e.
>> mail=@domain) and then using the mailforwardingaddress; search for an
>> entry for the domain and use a specific attribute within that entry.
>>
>> This removes the need for having an entry with "special" value in
>> the mail attribute.
>>
>
>So you add an entry with the custom domain as the (? - cn, mail,?)? I'm afraid you
>lost me here.
Yes I keep per domain entries to collect various bits of information
about the domain. There are already some other mail oriented bits of
data there. Some for use with the management tools to set default
values. Some for use with the mail routing software. For example
private mail routing hosts for domains that we forward mail for
with no mail processing (act as primary public MX and forward to
a private host).
So adding another value to define a host for forwarding (with
envelope rewriting) for otherwise undefined users is easy.
>> >4. Addressing of pagers, fax,... (Greg V & Stuart L)
>> >
>> >Hans makes the point that currently addressing rules are such that
>> >pagers, fax,... require another entry for the appropriate mail address
>> >(although many email systems allow for a user to have Filter Rules that
>> >forward mail to a pager, fax,..., as far as I know, there's no method
>> >currently provided for person A sending to person B's fax).
>> >
>> >It would certainly be nice to be able to standardize these alternate
>> >forms of communication, perhaps using a form something like:
>> >joe_blow+to:pager@domain.com
>> >where the to:pager would be taken as meaning use the pager number in
>> >joe_blow's entry to send a page of the message to joe_blow's pager.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure that capability is appropriate for this draft, but I'm open
>> >to suggestion.
>>
>> Assuming that joe:pager@domain might forward a message to joe's pager
>> (where joe@domain is joe's email address) is getting close to fuzzy
>> matching.
>>
>> I suppose the goal is to have a user entry with optional fields like:
>>
>> xxxPagerMail
>> xxxPagerForwarding
>> xxxFaxMail
>> xxxFaxForwarding
>>
>> Simply to support the goal of providing alternate email destination
>> addresses with different delivery provisions for a single entry.
>> This can of course be done by having multiple entries for a user.
>
>Not just that - also want to make it easier to address those alternate methods of
>delivery. Someone needn't know to send mail to page-joeblow@here.com, but just send
>to joeblow+to:pager@here.com, which would be a standard, for sending pages.
>Of course, that said, it appears that page-(user) is getting to be a de-facto
>standard, so maybe this isn't needed anyway. Besides, the more I think about it,
>the more I suspect this doesn't belong in the mailRecipient RFC (if it bears doing
>at all).
Yes. It also will remain fairly specific to specific installations (as in I
expect it is far to late to get *everyone* to agree to any specific standard
:-).
-- Stuart Lynne <sl@fireplug.net> 604-461-7532 <http://edge.fireplug.net> PGP Fingerprint: 28 E2 A0 15 99 62 9A 00 88 EC A3 EE 2D 1C 15 68
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Oct 24 2002 - 10:31:46 PDT