Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-00.txt

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Speaking strictly personally as an instance of "other people"...

--On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 12:14 -0500 "John R. Levine"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Where does using a percent-encoded instead of a punycoded
>> <ihost> help wrt mailing lists?  So far I think you can
>> either keep UTF-8 "as is" or "get it right" (= 3987 + 5890).
> 
> I still prefer to let other people weigh in on this.

In part because [e-mail] has historically meant
something special in email (where "bar" could easily be, e.g.,
61 or 62 with [e-mail] as a routing) and in part
because we just wanted to avoid the risks and attack vectors
associated with multiple encodings, we have strongly discouraged
use of %-encodings and other tricks wrt email addresses.  The
"discussion" last week in the IRI WG that illustrated the
non-equivalence in different environments between a string in
U-label form, one in A-label form, and one that was %-encoded
further illustrates the desirability of a "just get it right"
approach.   Pop-imap-downgrade illustrates the possibility of
using the more mail-like approach of encoded words rather than
%-encoding, especially %-encoded UTF-8.

So my preferences is close to Frank's.


--On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 16:32 +0000 John Levine
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> | Downgrading list headers
>> 
>> Should that get a reference to the pop-imap-downgrade draft?
> 
> Dunno, what do other people think.

Not unless you decide to use encoded words.  And maybe not then.
pop-imap-downgrade is designed to be applicable to communication
with remote mail reading clients by the mail store or delivery
MTA.

Again, just personal opinions at this point.

    john