Re: [EAI] [IETF] Content Issues [

ned+ima@mrochek.com Mon, 17 October 2016 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ima@mrochek.com>
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 A2B09129467 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 rMLez-_-NBzi for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (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 A85551293F2 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q684KYV75S00B0WY@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1476742789; bh=COGJtQ0YhmyECtlxBDA1NguvhgfCutjY0q4bV3PbZKk=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=VzXPUqw6CKS2cc9Pf7I+RelFFxMMkMhCGIJq/RmAM4BDmdWu3SsHcnJ2tqUFzqPsG VUzeFU0v+R+fBM9EgKO54Hi7kO5F9A1vKKfe2oGzgVM6WWqT3aapYSt/UZQAp3PwBN QJnvlk4IjJy0i6al6rP8gAgByNqvffyyNFybIxd8=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; format=flowed
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q64TB541DS00Q5OH@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ima@mrochek.com
Message-id: <01Q684KWD5D200Q5OH@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:28:35 +0900" <2f03e34f-36b3-4d9f-44b3-de21d008cfc6@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <MWHPR03MB281341141A1CE0C0895F58A482D10@MWHPR03MB2813.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <776420919.20161016132653@uanic.net> <MWHPR03MB2813F4FACF008F79A7540E2682D10@MWHPR03MB2813.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <01Q66PLXP7X800Q5OH@mauve.mrochek.com> <2f03e34f-36b3-4d9f-44b3-de21d008cfc6@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "=?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J._D=c3=bcrst?=" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/PmJqnnTT5nt1bO077g7z1JDkekA>
Cc: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] [IETF] Content Issues [
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:24:54 -0000

> Hello Ned,

> On 2016/10/17 03:35, ned+ima@mrochek.com wrote:

> > Bringing this back to the original issue of being able to use an EAI address on
> > IETF lists, if you want that to work and not break our current model for
> > participation and accountability you're going to have to require that everyone
> > use an EAI-capable account and user agent. Even if you could get IETF
> > participants to do that - and I can assure you that pigs will fly first -
> > think about the added cost of participation that brings.

> I think 'everyone' may be difficult, but something like 99% or 99.9%
> will eventually happen, just because for most kinds of software, it's
> easier to produce one version for use worldwide than to uselessly divide
> the market.

> As for added cost of participation, upgrading something like gmail is
> essentially instantaneous and free, and upgrading something like
> Thunderbird requires only a click or two. As these types of applications
> these days form the bulk of MUAs, the overall/average costs for
> participation won't be too big.

If you actually think there's no cost to "upgrading" your mail provider,
changing the client you use, or even adding an additional provider and client
to your workflow, there's no point in further discussion.

				Ned