[enum-wg] ENUM-capable email client?

* John C. Klensin:

> We seem to be misunderstanding each other, and I don't why.   In
> particular, I don't know what you mean by "weak on
> local-part-based routing" since any MTA, other than a final
> delivery one, that does _any_ routing on the content of the
> local part is in clear violation of the SMTP standard.   I don't
> know if you think an MTA is weak because it follows the standard
> or weak because it violates it.

RFC 2476 (SMTP Submission) does in fact allow rewriting
local-parts. 8-) But I can understand that there are conceptual
problems if you do this potentially on each hop.  But at the time of
message injection -- why not?  I can assure that this is the way
ENUM-based client-side mail routing will be implemented on UNIX
platforms.  It belongs into the local MTA, not the MUA.

However, I have some doubt whether it's a good idea to promote
E.164-based addressing beyond VoIP.  For example, if I obtained an
ENUM delegation and started hosting a copyright-infringing web site on
<http://4.0.5.0.7.0.8.1.1.7.9.4.e164.arpa/>, how would the copyright
holder be able to track me down?