[ih] Some Questions over IPv4 Ownership

[Jack Haverty]

Yep, we're on the same page.  Email portability exists now, if you just
get a domain name per recipient.  I suspect the DNS today couldn't
handle that if too many people did it.  Yes, yuch.  But a similar
mechanism must exist today inside the telephone world so it's proven
possible.

I think eventually we'll all have portable email addresses.  Not too
long either.  Our addresses might just be our cell phone numbers.  Why
not...email and voicemail aren't all that different except at the very
endpoints of the path.

Naah, I'm not mad about the encoding in 733.  But I'm happy that
structured data encoding has finally caught on with XML.  If those now
ancient mail protocols got a facelift today, I bet they'd be based on
XML.

/Jack


On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 07:40 -0400, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> On 10/15/2010 12:12 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
> > If "jack at 3kitty.org" is the example of forwarding you have in mind,
> > that's not how it works.  When I change providers, I move my 3kitty.org
> > service from one provider to another,
> ...
> > I do have a bunch of xxx at 3kitty.org mailboxes, and they all must move
> > together.
> 
> 
> You are emulating a version of exactly the service I described towards the end 
> of my note, modulo the extra forwarding hop. It's key feature is that it is 
> independent of ISPs and it does not require their cooperation.
> 
> However, as you note, all of the mailboxes must move together:  granularity is 
> at the domain name level, not the mailbox level.  To get per-user granularity, 
> you have to encode it in the domain name, given the way email routing works.
> 
> The reason you can have "direct" routing, without having to go through a 
> forwarder is that you control the DNS MX record.  In effect that means an MX 
> record per "customer", if not per "mailbox".  Again, that's doable today and it 
> is done today.  The challenge is scaling that model up to a mass market.  In 
> effect, it means an MX per user (or maybe per family).  Yuch.
> 
> d/
> 
> ps.  I figure you're still unhappy we didn't adopt your encoding scheme when we 
> did RFC 733...
> 
> 
>