Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs

Frank Ellermann <> Mon, 15 August 2011 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F090611E80D7 for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.663
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.284, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WlRtRMViJzxI for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8EC11E80D4 for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyf3 with SMTP id 3so3832985gyf.31 for <>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Nth8/LMrVTRh0YtRtHREsVTPu9gq/YXRGzvQDRM/uKM=; b=ZgmErNXAgZ/3CBLmr5O/B7vPFAEPN2ETYySAr5yKP8kZz0EXStBZ+d+mreJPDo9AJH 55Eoq19wuaPKxvQ+bXlWWcJ1MDGWoXWNo0TO7267CwZBHqHN92btWhOELRsh4x8pu1oV EpaiFrBWCQKCeImG75plsD8n8Vo4lw40+wgPk=
Received: by with SMTP id x12mr2227385wfi.105.1313435638125; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Frank Ellermann <>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:13:38 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To:, Ned Freed <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:13:16 -0000

Sorry, apparently I forgot the CC: to the list, resent:

On 15 August 2011 17:19,  Ned Freed wrote:

> I'll be the first to state that the approach being taken here is risky.
> In fact I would never have chosen this approach myself. But that doesn't
> change the fact that there's a consensus to proceed in this fashion.

Maybe my original idea to start the whining in an IETF Last Call was not
completely wrong, because I certainly missed whatever resulted in this
consensus, and just *assumed* that EAI just moves on to "standards track",
because the Internet at large obviously survived the EAI "experiment".

In another mail you wrote about checking all Message-IDs in other RFCs:

| Maybe, if we were taking the MIME approach, such a check would make
| sense. But we're not doing that.

That is rather disturbing for me, "not taking the MIME approach" is not
something I'd consider.  Apart from breaking the concept of Message-IDs
without any immediately visible reasons after more than three decades,
what else does it encompass?  Whatever it might be, shouldn't this be
stated in 4952bis, preferably in upper case?

>From my POV the A in IDNA means Applications, and the first I in IRI is
not an U, no matter what XML or HTML5 say or wish.  E.g., if email users
try to use a mailto:acsii@example?in-reply-to=mid link in a mailing list
archive this is supposed to result in a message/rfc822 with an ordinary
In-Reply-To header field, unless this user intentionally uses some EAI

Message-IDs don't need to be "pretty" or "human readable" or something,
their main point is to work as designed under almost all circumstances.