Re: Subaddressing (was: Re: A couple of comments on the open issues...)

   >	Whether one uses an IDNA-like approach, or something of
   >	the general character of 8BITADDRESSES (I suspect I'm
   >	going fairly quickly come to hate that term), we don't
   >	want to disrupt local-address opacity.  Consequently,
   >	anything that is to be done with subaddresses --or any
   >	other special-purpose parsing of the local-part into
   >	subdivisions for differential processing-- must be
   >	done before encoding on the sending side and processed
   >	post-decoding on the receiving side.
   >
   >    [...]
   >
   >If we can actually agree on that, then a good many of the recent 
   >discussions become irrelevant, and we can move on to other topics.

   John and I agree on this; if others do as well, the latter part of 
   that sentence becomes true.

I've moved from strongly disagreeing to sitting on the fence to
feeling like I'm going to fall off the fence on your side.  I hope the
grass is nice and soft on your side of the fence :)

      -roy