Re: [EAI] Last Call question about encoding of <mailbox> in popimap-downgrade
Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Tue, 24 July 2012 08:21 UTC
Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A52B21F85E0 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x+5-z+Y12njz for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA16A21F853F for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB77FA04A3; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:21:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1343118075-24130-24129/11/2; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:21:15 +0000
Message-Id: <500E5AFE.4020100@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:21:18 +0200
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: ima@ietf.org
References: <103098ACFA1F9309539FFA6E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <500DF710.8010504@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4526529FDD71E2FE4601AFA4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <4526529FDD71E2FE4601AFA4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [EAI] Last Call question about encoding of <mailbox> in popimap-downgrade
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:21:17 -0000
I don't think popimap-downgrade should regulate that, at least not too closely. Cc: a@B, c@F, E@f Suppose the server can downgrade two of those, the third not. Anyone doing a group reply may then reply to some people, not all. Is that better than nothing or dangerously misleading? I can see sense in both viewpoints and neither is much better than the other, and so I think it's bad to disallow one of them. RFC should not contain rules with which a sensible implementer can/will strongly disagree. I realise that's not always possible. Arnt
- [EAI] Last Call question about encoding of <mailb… John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] Last Call question about encoding of <m… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [EAI] Last Call question about encoding of <m… John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] Last Call question about encoding of <m… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [EAI] Last Call question about encoding of <m… Joseph Yee