Re: [Extra] IMAP RFC 6855 (IMAP EAI) implementation experience: input to IMAP4rev2

Ned Freed <> Thu, 22 November 2018 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4506E129A87 for <>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:22:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8bZaTeT-DWmq for <>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:22:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B91051292AD for <>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:22:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> for; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:17:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=201712; t=1542899863; bh=5i9Jt1sIbyP1GYxenP8YYVxAmRw+5CRt6XMh2dTW5W8=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=XspTD5Iym9S391nGeFT19c+O9DOA+FppOTe0Oj6ReCpSornLP9RfcQVo6Sip9gf3W gHn9YWY3k7YbZlzgFmYdjLv4x42+bjwppcnX0km3hm1pcZ3Ro3RYJC0fYsrItNWJbY 22V6x4Aw8QJZBpBXmJQWRPZ11bynThzC3JaVGFno=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=gb2312
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:17:37 -0800 (PST)
Cc: "chris.newman" <>, extra <>
Message-id: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:00:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 21 Nov 2018 20:51:25 +0800" <>
References: <> <>
To: Jiankang Yao <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Extra] IMAP RFC 6855 (IMAP EAI) implementation experience: input to IMAP4rev2
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 15:22:48 -0000

> From: Chris Newman
> Date: 2018-11-21 07:28
> To: extra
> Subject: [Extra] IMAP RFC 6855 (IMAP EAI) implementation experience: input to IMAP4rev2
> > Ned's
> >implementation experience from RFC 6531 was that the real world just
> >can't usefully work the way the specification describes. That experience
> >informed my work implementing RFC 6855.
> >

> ICANN UASG EAI WG is pushing the deployment of EAI. John Levine has run an
> analysis of the EAI Readiness of the Internet’s mail servers.

> His DRAFT report is at

> From this report, the current EAI deployment  is amazing.

I would use a very different term to describe the degree of what the report
calls deployment, but that's really beside the point.

The fact is that since these numbers count services like gmail as a successful
deployment of EAI, they are irrelevant to point Chris is making.

Why? Because gmail doesn't implement EAI acccording to the standards - and
Google makes no secret of this. The last I checked gmail will happily send an
EAI message to server that doesn't support EAI - which is the only sensible
thing to do, gmail doesn't implement the user agent side of EAI at all, and
most importantly, gmail only supports other people's EAI addresses; not its

Indeed, the fact that Google saw fit to "implement" EAI this way only serves
to support the point Chris was making: EAI as specified has some serious
issues, and sooner or later the IETF is gong to have to deal with this.

> You may also be interested in this list discussion here

It's a private list; the archives of which are not public.