Re: Can we back up a bit and ask some basic questions?An alternate model

On Thursday 20 February 2003 04:39, Jeffrey J Zahari wrote:
<snip>
> Here is how both can exist: because IMAA-ACE approach implicitly
> assumes 2821 IMAA-ACE, a sender/receiver MTA can, using smtp
> extensions, specify UTF8ADDRESS or IMAAADDRESS, leaving it up to the
> intermediate MTA to do the appropriate conversions if necessary. It
> is assumed that servers advertising UTF8ADDRESS have the wherewithal
> to IDNA the RHS for dns resolution.
<snip>

Any UTF8ADDRESS extension to SMTP is a way to make the SMTP local part 
(and domain?) slots explicitly IMA-aware. This is completely orthogonal 
to IMAA-ACE. A server supporting UTF8ADDRESS would be required to 
encode all addresses in IMAA-ACE if the next hop doesn't announce the 
UTF8ADDRESS extension.

An UTF8ADDRESS SMTP extension doesn't solve the problem for any other 
IMA-unaware slot. Insofar it's usefulness is limited (though the same 
can be said about 8BITMIME, of course). It's a convenience to - yes to 
whom? While 8BITMIME corresponds to the "8bit" CTE in MIME messages and 
thus saves (if supported) applying a CTE at the MUA level, UTF8ADDRESS 
lacks such support outside of SMTP, since rfc2822 slots will still be 
IMAA-unaware.

So: Who is going to benefit from UTF8ADDRESS (other than aesthetics)?

Marc

-- 
Ein Grundrecht auf Sicherheit steht bewusst nicht in der Verfassung.
  -- Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (ehem. Bundesjustizministerin)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+VNX93oWD+L2/6DgRAto+AKDtV5Ti/JqIe3wk7U8PcCc/mtfVcQCg4+4w
WDvykc1fP6L5XzF63Ryjcto=
=ATK/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----