IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-822] More encoding (was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-02.txt)

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 19 October 2020 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C156B3A11F7 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.com
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 CQzY1dKKQzf6 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [98.153.82.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1A603A11F6 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RQYPRGUMGG00AZYB@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-822@ietf.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1603071858; bh=38AbHiIwT/0zWfZ4HZFZOSh5ZU5DJBKBoogcx0Q67hE=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=G3dg9GihgnMWioMiyzl7WYgZ829U14g9vIE+E/PfC0nRr4bclydIdnDTYvStrsIlE fNNnGBVEt5R6afcOCmYALtdvUMjDGhoLsWNblkTJeeDuCaNsS+0cJV6s4uZkGbm0YH zuuOxJH+lJMqOptMy/+WGYwqA6X9kPenKNSYIPU8=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RQN4TDY6V4005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ietf-822@ietf.org, ned.freed@mrochek.com
Message-id: <01RQYPRE7A4U005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:42:15 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 18 Oct 2020 17:37:33 -0400" <20201018213734.2B2F823A11AC@ary.qy>
References: <01RQYDVJUD5A005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> <20201018213734.2B2F823A11AC@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/_Qbn2vQMyCKMZqClNYnuspuS0Wg>
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] More encoding (was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-02.txt)
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format \[RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322\]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-822/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 01:49:23 -0000

> In article <01RQYDVJUD5A005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> you write:
> >> On 10/16/2020 4:01 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
> >> >>     In messages that are not Internationalized [RFC6532], emoji and any
> >> >>     other non-ASCII characters MUST be encoded using [MIME-Enc].

> >> However, I just got an offlist suggestion I'd like to get reactions to:
> >
> >> > ... consider allowing the emoji to be specified (one option) as "U+1F44D", so:
> >> >    In-Reply-React: U+1F44D U+1F622

> >> Thoughts?
> >
> >My thought is "no". It's not that encoded-words are great, it's that they enjoy
> >universal deployment. Use encoded-words and access to the unencoded form is one
> >routine call away, if that. Anything else is more work, and no matter how much
> >better is looks to coding geeks, it's still nonsense to users.

> I agree. Every MUA that can display Unicode already has code to handle
> encoded-words. Use it. Indeed, having tracked down some MIME bugs in
> mail processing libraries I can say that in many cases it would take
> extra special case coding to make an MUA *not* do encoded-word
> decoding on a new header field.

And if encoded-words are still too... flexible, how about a recommendation
or even a requirement that UTF-8 be used? Amending your suggested language
to:

   In messages that are not Internationalized [RFC6532], emoji and any
   other non-ASCII characters MUST be encoded using [MIME-Enc] with UTF-8
   as the charset.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email