The NL Naming Authority is not a ghost, but a *function*.
I realise that, of course.
And it doesn't really matter who in a particular case is speaking on behalf of the NL Naming Authority:
Yes, it does, or rather, it matters that I know whom I'm addressing when I write this *reply* message. I want to know if I'm addressing the same person that I addressed in the previous message regarding the same matter, or if I have to describe the entire problem once again, which is often the case with e.g. tax authorities, which usually implement the same principle. As I said - I have no problems using a function alias as a technical means of reaching you, and the mail alias is an important way of signalling which hat I want you to wear when you read the message, but I want to know with whom I'm dealing. As an analogy, consider the case when you call by phone e.g. to the tax authorities. You dial a number to their swichboard (the *function* number), but you would probably be a bit annoyed if the person that you finally got connected to didn't present him-/herself with his/her name, wouldn't you? And when you called them again a week later, you would still call the switchboard number, but you would address yourself to the person you talked to the week before, who presumably knows the case. Furthermore, if I would like to move this conversation to another media, e.g. phone, I can easily get a phone number that presumably reaches you in one way or the other, but getting a phone number for "hostmaster" is somewhat more difficult.
the official e-mail address hostmaster@cwi.nl is linked to the function and is always used in the From: field when the message is an official message/reply/statement by the NL Naming Authority. Like in this case.
... which I have no problem with.
Besides, the standards require that when the From: line differs from the e-mail address of the person who sent the mail, a Sender: line be present. And that's the case in all mails with hostmaster@cwi.nl in the From: line. That's what we call "implicit identification".
True. My mail agent unfortunately filters this out (my fault, my problem), therefore I missed this information, and I hereby apologize for the "assault". My point of view still stands, as a principle - one should identify oneself, even if one represents a "function" - but I see now when I take a close look that you did just that in a perfectly good manner. Again, my apologies. Cheers, /Liman