Subject: Re: [EAI] Extending IDNA to email

From: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:07:52 +0000

Although not opposed to Punycode as a very-last-resort-wosrt-case-ugly fallback, I much prefer the UTF-8 approach, and, indeed, that's the approach we're looking at.

-Shawn

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:04:39 -0000

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:07:52 -0000, Shawn Steele  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Although not opposed to Punycode as a very-last-resort-wosrt-case-ugly  
> fallback, I much prefer the UTF-8 approach, and, indeed, that's the  
> approach we're looking at.

Indeed, but I think the intention is that within the EAI world, things  
would remain in utf-8 throughout. But if alt-addresses are to be abolished  
(and that seems to be the intention), some such downgrade will be needed.  
Not much use for delivery of an original message, but suppose that such a  
UFF-8 address appears in a Reply-To, or in a Return-Path. Then the  
recipient may see that ugly punycoded format (he may even enter that ugly  
version in his address book). Now, when he wants to reply, or when the  
message is to be bounced up the Return-Path, it will indeed get sent to  
the correct (EAI-aware) server, using the existing protocols.

So we then need an extension to our transmission document to say that  
EAI-aware servers need to be prepared to accept messages in that form and  
pass them to the intended recipient (either by prestoring the punycoded  
version of all their local users or, more likely, by unscrambling any  
punycoded local-part before attemptiong to deliver it). That doesn't sound  
too difficult.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5