Re: Problems of Internationalized Mail Address eXtensions (IMAX)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email protected]>
> Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > At 8:53 PM +0100 2/24/03, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >>I'm saying that when implementing a MTA it is easier if I don't have
> >>to implement punycode in order to support non-ASCII.
> >
> > And you don't have to. IMAA-ACE works with no changes to the MTA. IMAX
> > forces changes, including changing the maximum line lengths for the
> > MAIL FROM and RCPT TO commands. That's pretty non-trivial.
>
> Perhaps IMAX can be modified so it doesn't require those changes?

Absolutely.  I just thought it would be good to lengthen the fields...
actually for punycode... It is not critical to IMAX, and I will take it out.

> >>How would an ESMTP extension with an ACE fallback (i.e., IMAX) involve
> >>bouncing or dropping mail?
> >
> > The second paragraph of section 2.3 sure sounds like it would bounce
> > things instead of doing an ACE fallback.
>
> I don't get that impression.  It sounds to me that unless IMAX is
> used, the interpretation and handling of the mail addresses is out of
> scope of IMAX.  Perhaps it would be good to clarify that section so
> whatever the intention was, it is made specific?

I have changed 2.3 to reflect it.  I will submit an updated draft based on
our discussions so far.

Edmon