Subject: [EAI] RCPT TO and ALT-ADDRESS - do we have a consensus?

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:26:53 -0700

It seems reasonably clear to me that:

- when an UTF8SMTP user sends to an ASCII address, he doesn't need to 
include ALT-ADDR on the RCPT TO - the address is already ASCII.

- when an UTF8SMTP user sends to an UTF8SMTP address, and all the MTAs 
in between are UTF8SMTP, there is no need for an ALT-ADDR on the RCPT TO 
- the message will not be downgraded.

So there are two cases (that I can see) where ALT-ADDR on RCPT TO may be 
useful:

- when an UTF8SMTP user sends to an UTF8SMTP address, and there is a 
non-UTF8SMTP MTA on the path

- when an UTF8SMTP user sends to what he thinks is an UTF8SMTP address, 
but the recipient, for reasons of his own, has decided that he wants the 
mail delivered to an ASCII address

If we remove ALT-ADDR from RCPT TO, we have made the last two cases 
impossible to support - but we have made both the specification and the 
deployment of it simpler.

I have seen a number of messages indicating that this might be OK.

So I'd like to check what people think if forced to choose between 
alternatives:

A - RCPT TO supports the ALT-ADDR parameter
B - RCPT TO does not support the ALT-ADDR parameter

Possible responses would be "A", "B", or "I don't have enough 
information to decide yet"....

                              Harald

_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:41:26 +0100

> mail delivered to an ASCII address

There is also the case where the UTF8SMTP user has both kinds of address  
(so that he may be reached from anywhere) and has published both in a  
mailto:URL, or in a Reply-To, or wherever else. The man who wishes to mail  
him (and is maybe not sure which to use, or does not understand the  
distinction) just copies the (double) address that he sees, or clicks on  
the mailto, or hits Reply.

> B - RCPT TO does not support the ALT-ADDR parameter

I still prefer A, until persuaded otherwise.

Presumably the full mechanism is still needed for Mail From, and hearders  
such as From and Reply-To. So you might as well provide it all round.

-- 
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

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:34:44 +0100

> non-UTF8SMTP MTA on the path

Allowing downgrading of UTF8-to-UTF8 email would be a change to the WG's
basic framework.

> - when an UTF8SMTP user sends to what he thinks is an UTF8SMTP address, but
> the recipient, for reasons of his own, has decided that he wants the mail
> delivered to an ASCII address

I presume you have forwarding in mind here. ALT-ADDRESS is not necessary
in the forwarding case because the ASCII address is provided by the
forwarder not the sender.

> B - RCPT TO does not support the ALT-ADDR parameter

+1 (and not the DOWNGRADABLE parameter either)

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
FISHER: WEST OR NORTHWEST 4 OR 5 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. FAIR. MODERATE OR
GOOD.