Re: [apps-discuss] Mail client configuration via something, maybe WebFinger

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4561E1B2F66 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:17:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.336
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IMeOPYRU9GDQ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:17:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F2081B2F64 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:17:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 23350 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2016 20:17:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2016 20:17:23 -0000
Date: 10 Feb 2016 20:17:01 -0000
Message-ID: <20160210201701.1725.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5e3d7843-b3c8-4baa-b2da-2683fc36df84@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/1iQcwnvoWPWWZPnyGvyGikq3lPU>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Mail client configuration via something, maybe WebFinger
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:17:27 -0000

>The EAI situation is better than you probably think, mostly because the 
>unicode committee does very good work and the rest of the world is lucky 
>that it does.

Oh, I agree.  I was thinking of stuff like accented vowels which in
French are usually considered close enough to the unaccented versions
that you'd consider accented and unaccented versions to be the same
name, as opposed to Scandinavian languages where the various forms of
"o" are entirely different letters.

There's also traditional and simplified Chinese characters which are
equivalent except when they aren't.

This has been an enormous can of worms for domain names, trying to
figure out when names are close enough to be more or less equivalent
and if so what to do about it.  With EAI every MTA operator can do
what makes sense in their situation but I'm guessing there will be as
little consistency there as there is about what you do with dots and
plus signs in ASCII local parts.

R's,
John