Subject: CAP: matching common names

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:32:23 -0400

The last paragraph of CAP section 2.4.2.1 specifies that a CS or CUA 
processing data received by iMIP should compare the personal-name part 
of the From: email address with the CN part of the ORGANIZER or ATTENDEE 
property, and refuse the message if they don't match. This is very 
risky; people's names do not stay unchanged forever. Consider Lisa 
Dusseault; in the time I've known her, she's also gone by Lisa Lippert 
and Lisa Lippert-Dusseault. Looking at my old calsch mail, I see some 
messages from her saying "Lisa Lippert (Dusseault) (Exchange)", which 
brings up another, shorter time-scale problem: sometimes different UAs 
for the same email address will be configured with slightly different names.

-- 
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"The struggle is always worthwhile, if the end  |
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>|be worthwhile and the means honorable;          |
|                |foreknowledge of defeat is not sufficient reason|
|                |to withdraw from the contest." -- Adron         |
|                |e'Kieron, by Steven Brust                       |
\=================================================================/

---

From: George Babics <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:21:49 -0400

Noted on the to do list as an issue.
Perhaps all we should compare is the UPN
with the e-mail address?

Suggestions?

George

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:32:31 -0400

>Perhaps all we should compare is the UPN
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

-- 
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Never underestimate the power of human       |
[email-masked]|stupidity. --I forget who                    |
\==============================================================/

---

From: "David L. Nicol" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 20:03:21 -0500

For maximum flexibility we would leave UPN as vague
as possible except there is a one-one rltn btwn it and
specific individuals or constructs that act like individuals.
Most implementations will use e-mail address but some implementations
might have multiple e-mail addresses mapping to one UPN.  This kind
of situation is generally dealt with by allowing administrative
aliasing of one to another.

But regardless of if the standard insists that UPNs have to
be well-formed e-mail addresses rather than random 64-bit integers,
demanding that the Personal Name portion of an e-mail address
match something is just going to be frustrating for people who
get it wrong and not do anything to stop abuse.

-- 
                                           David Nicol 816.235.1187
"... raised indoors and tested by certified technicians"