Re: [Monotone-devel] branch naming conventions

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 11:57:16AM -0500, Ethan Blanton wrote:
> Nathaniel Smith spake unto us the following wisdom:
> >      This is also somewhat problematic (though this hasn't come up as
> >      much yet, though it probably will as monotone usage grows),
> >      because it means that if the, say, "address@hidden" key goes bad,
> >      like it gets compromised or I lose the privkey or something, then
> >      I can't replace it, I have to make a new name.
> >      address@hidden is one option, but not terribly satisfying,
> >      esp. since I don't know how well + addresses are supported
> >      generally...
> 
> I use user+tag addresses with some frequency, and I have not noted any
> particular problems with them.  + is a legal character in an address,
> and only the end-host mailer must make the distinction as to whether
> or not the tag following the + is significant; I know that sendmail
> and postfix both do.  I'm not sure this is a good long-term solution
> (it seems that expiring or otherwise invalidated keys should be
> gracefully accounted for; opencm has this same problem), but it's
> certainly workable stopgap.

I'm sure they're universally supported on the sender end, since it's
the receiving MTA that has to do the only special handling; what I'm
worried about is whether everyone uses MTAs that do that special
handling.  We can't tell people to just use + addresses if they come
back and say "I tried sending an email to address@hidden, and it
bounced"...

-- Nathaniel

-- 
"Of course, the entire effort is to put oneself
 Outside the ordinary range
 Of what are called statistics."
  -- Stephan Spender