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

Good to hear from you.
I actually agree with you about the M- headers thing... i wasnt so sure to
begin with.
But in order to phase out the ACE fallback, there needs to be new header
fields that could use email addresses in other forms than ACE...  What are
your thoughts?

Edmon


----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email protected]>
To: "Edmon Chung" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: Can we back up a bit and ask some basic questions?An alternate
model


>
> "Edmon Chung" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I have just submitted the draft on IMA based on SMTP and POP extensions
to
> > the IETF.  You could also check it out at
> > http://www.dnsii.org/draft-ietf-chung-imax-00.txt
>
> This looks good IMHO.
>
> Apparently, this seems to be a back-wards compatible way to make SMTP
> and POP-3 accept internationalized mail addresses, thus making it
> possible to gradually phase out the 7-bit legacy compatible punycode
> hack.  I'm not sure the M-* headers is such a good idea though,
> perhaps it is better to simply make this a way to enable non-ASCII in
> SMTP and POP3 and leave header internationalization up to another
> standard.  The M-From also seem to break the SMTP and RFC822 envelope
> header dichotomy (MAIL FROM doesn't need to be the same as From:).
>
> Add a IMAP capability in the same vein and we are set.
>
>