Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

VMware and plus addressing

Expand Messages
  • Victoriano Giralt
    ... Hash: RIPEMD160 I have also received the following jewell from VMware: You are receiving this email because our customer records indicate you are a
    Message 1 of 8 , May 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
      Hash: RIPEMD160

      I have also received the following 'jewell' from VMware:

      "
      You are receiving this email because our customer records indicate you
      are a License Administrator, Support Administrator or the registered
      user of a VMware serial number with one or more of the follow characters
      in your User ID uid+vmware@...:

      ( ) * + , ; < > \ ~ / :
      "

      I do extensive use of plus addressing so I find this very disgusting and
      prepotent attitude from VMware, as + is completely valid in the local
      part of an address. Or should I stand corrected?

      I propose to answer their letter in these or similar terms:
      "
      I'm afraid YOU have a big problem with your software. After reviewing
      pertinent RFCs for e-mail, going even back to RFC720, I haven't been
      able to find ANY RFC where + is stated as illegal in e-mail addresses.
      Plus addressing is extensively used in many sites for mail classifying,
      precisely, it is our company policy to use plus-addressing for e-mail
      classification. This policy is deeply implemented in our business
      processes and will require a too big an effort on our part. It is also
      our company policy to not accept unilateral unjustified policy changes
      imposed buy a supplier, no matter how big. So, YOU must provide further
      evidence of the illegality of + in the local part of mail address, or
      you should review that arbitrary decision.

      Thank you.
      "

      I'd like some feedback from you, a good lot of e-mail knowledgeable
      people, before pushing the send button. If we admit this kind of
      arbitrary attitudes we will end with no control over the local part of
      our addresses, which are that LOCAL.

      Thanks for your input.
      - --
      Victoriano Giralt
      Systems Manager
      Central Computing Facility
      University of Malaga
      SPAIN
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
      Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

      iD8DBQFEfhTpV6+mDjj1PTgRAzfZAKCc8Na2Sia0ezT0vK8PKFccnGsFkACgkdwn
      TRSuovs3Rl3WGPM2VODM8Sc=
      =tLAF
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    • Victor Duchovni
      ... + is valid in address local parts without quoting. It is an atom character per RFC 822/2822. There is no lexical class distinction between: foopbar and
      Message 2 of 8 , May 31, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 12:12:58AM +0200, Victoriano Giralt wrote:

        > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
        > Hash: RIPEMD160
        >
        > I have also received the following 'jewell' from VMware:
        >
        > "
        > You are receiving this email because our customer records indicate you
        > are a License Administrator, Support Administrator or the registered
        > user of a VMware serial number with one or more of the follow characters
        > in your User ID uid+vmware@...:
        >
        > ( ) * + , ; < > \ ~ / :
        > "
        >
        > I do extensive use of plus addressing so I find this very disgusting and
        > prepotent attitude from VMware, as + is completely valid in the local
        > part of an address. Or should I stand corrected?
        >

        "+" is valid in address local parts without quoting. It is an "atom"
        character per RFC 822/2822. There is no lexical class distinction between:

        foopbar and foo+bar

        --
        Viktor.

        P.S. Morgan Stanley is looking for a New York City based, Senior Unix
        system/email administrator to architect and sustain the Unix email
        environment. If you are interested, please drop me a note.

        Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
        Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

        To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
        http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
        <mailto:majordomo@...?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

        If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
        send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
        "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
      • Alex Satrapa
        ... VMWare are obviously planning to sell their customer list to spammers, and this purging of extended address details is intended to make their list more
        Message 3 of 8 , May 31, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On 1 Jun 2006, at 08:12, Victoriano Giralt wrote:

          > I have also received the following 'jewell' from VMware:
          >
          >> You are receiving this email because our customer records indicate
          >> you
          >> are a License Administrator, Support Administrator or the registered
          >> user of a VMware serial number with one or more of the follow
          >> characters
          >> in your User ID uid+vmware@...:
          >>
          >> ( ) * + , ; < > \ ~ / :

          VMWare are obviously planning to sell their customer list to
          spammers, and this purging of extended address details is intended to
          make their list more sale-able. Cease doing business with them, and
          explain why you are cancelling your support contracts.

          If they don't retract their claim that "+" is an invalid character to
          have in an email address, make sure the full correspondence gets
          submitted to The Register, Slashdot and Digg.

          Alex
        • Evan Platt
          ... Wow, that s a big conclusion to jump to. Isn t it possible they re switching to a CRM app that doesn t allow it, or possibly another reason? ... Nowhere
          Message 4 of 8 , May 31, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, May 31, 2006 3:55 pm, Alex Satrapa wrote:
            > VMWare are obviously planning to sell their customer list to
            > spammers, and this purging of extended address details is intended to
            > make their list more sale-able. Cease doing business with them, and
            > explain why you are cancelling your support contracts.

            Wow, that's a big conclusion to jump to.

            Isn't it possible they're switching to a CRM app that doesn't allow it, or
            possibly another reason?

            > If they don't retract their claim that "+" is an invalid character to
            > have in an email address, make sure the full correspondence gets
            > submitted to The Register, Slashdot and Digg.

            Nowhere (at least on the message forwarded to this group) did they claim
            the + is invalid in an e-mail address. They simply stated they don't want
            it in a username.
          • Rod Dorman
            ... I m not sure how this all relates to Postfix but, did they ever make the claim that those characters are invalid in an e-mail address? It could simply be
            Message 5 of 8 , May 31, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wednesday, May 31, 2006, 18:55:53, Alex Satrapa wrote:
              > On 1 Jun 2006, at 08:12, Victoriano Giralt wrote:
              >> I have also received the following 'jewell' from VMware:
              >>> You are receiving this email because our customer records indicate
              >>> you are a License Administrator, Support Administrator or the
              >>> registered user of a VMware serial number with one or more of the
              >>> follow characters in your User ID uid+vmware@...:
              >>>
              >>> ( ) * + , ; < > \ ~ / :
              >
              > VMWare are obviously planning to sell their customer list to
              > spammers, and this purging of extended address details is intended to
              > make their list more sale-able. Cease doing business with them, and
              > explain why you are cancelling your support contracts.
              >
              > If they don't retract their claim that "+" is an invalid character to
              > have in an email address, make sure the full correspondence gets
              > submitted to The Register, Slashdot and Digg.

              I'm not sure how this all relates to Postfix but, did they ever make the
              claim that those characters are invalid in an e-mail address?

              It could simply be that their database (or other) software is unable to
              handle it.

              --
              rodd@... "The avalanche has already started, it is too
              Rod Dorman late for the pebbles to vote." - Ambassador Kosh
            • Michael J Wise
              ... Then they should fix their database software. Until then, may I suggest the following replacement email address: devnull@example.com or some such. Aloha
              Message 6 of 8 , May 31, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On May 31, 2006, at 1:11 PM, Rod Dorman wrote:

                > It could simply be that their database (or other) software is
                > unable to
                > handle it.

                Then they should fix their database software.
                Until then, may I suggest the following replacement email address:

                devnull@...

                or some such.

                Aloha mai Nai`a!
                --
                "Please have your Internet License http://kapu.net/~mjwise/
                and Usenet Registration handy..."
              • Brian Collins
                ... In their letter to Jorey they said, ...update your profile to include an email address without the characters above. My thought is that if they re going
                Message 7 of 8 , Jun 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I'm not sure how this all relates to Postfix but, did they ever make the
                  > claim that those characters are invalid in an e-mail address?
                  >
                  > It could simply be that their database (or other) software is unable to
                  > handle it.

                  In their letter to Jorey they said, "...update your profile to include an
                  email address without the characters above." My thought is that if they're
                  going to accept an email address as a login ID, they should accept valid
                  email addresses. If the problem is in their CRM/database software, perhaps
                  they should consider their criteria for login IDs to make them something
                  other than email addresses (and effective way to do that would be to also
                  exclude '@' from login IDs). But it's not a perfect world, and I'm thinking
                  perhaps they've chosen the least troublesome path, which is to inconvenience
                  only the users who have email addresses with these "invalid" characters.

                  --Brian
                • mouss
                  ... They can decide whatever user-mgmt/addressing scheme suits them. if that breaks a contract they have with you, then sue them. otherwise, you have nothing
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jun 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Brian Collins wrote:
                    >> I'm not sure how this all relates to Postfix but, did they ever make the
                    >> claim that those characters are invalid in an e-mail address?
                    >>
                    >> It could simply be that their database (or other) software is unable to
                    >> handle it.
                    >>
                    >
                    > In their letter to Jorey they said, "...update your profile to include an
                    > email address without the characters above." My thought is that if they're
                    > going to accept an email address as a login ID, they should accept valid
                    > email addresses. If the problem is in their CRM/database software, perhaps
                    > they should consider their criteria for login IDs to make them something
                    > other than email addresses (and effective way to do that would be to also
                    > exclude '@' from login IDs). But it's not a perfect world, and I'm thinking
                    > perhaps they've chosen the least troublesome path, which is to inconvenience
                    > only the users who have email addresses with these "invalid" characters.
                    >
                    >
                    They can decide whatever user-mgmt/addressing scheme suits them. if that
                    breaks a contract they have with you, then sue them. otherwise, you have
                    nothing to say (unless they hire you as a consultant).

                    so let's please end this thread.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.