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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 18:24 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 EAD531B2E97 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:24:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.964
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.964 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.001, MANGLED_TEXT=2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 ePPiZtxSbN2n for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:24:31 -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 C2C691B2E5B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 5916 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2016 18:24:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2016 18:24:29 -0000
Date: 10 Feb 2016 18:24:07 -0000
Message-ID: <20160210182407.1404.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <BBCA39E3-D0EA-4B82-AD47-DA239DBAA7A5@standardstrack.com>
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/ULwsg5R3yneHW6Qore2KM53PViI>
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 18:24:35 -0000

>I am pleasantly surprised - you have an ISP that respects the RFC that states the user
>part *is* case sensitive. Most ignore that. Oh well.

No, that's not what the RFC says.  It says it's up to the mail system
to decide what the local part means.  It's perfectly valid for a mail
system to treat ASCII case variants of the local part of its mailboxes
as equivalent, and I have to say it's been a long time since I've seen
one that doesn't.

I wonder what system Doug is using that cares, and how old its code is.

R;s,
John

PS: Where it gets a lot hairier is with optional characters like dots
in gmail names, optional suffixes like user+ext@domain or
user-ext@domain, and the whole world of EAI and UTF-8 where I am sure
there are all sorts of things that are obviously equivalent in some
languages and not in others.