IETF Logo Mail Archive

[EAI] Re: Comment about draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-01.txt

"Yao Jiankang" <yaojk@cnnic.cn> Sun, 08 October 2006 07:10 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWSo6-00049T-0C; Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:10:42 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWSo5-00049O-Fj for ima@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:10:41 -0400
Received: from smtp.cnnic.cn ([159.226.7.146] helo=cnnic.cn) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWSo3-0000kM-Pd for ima@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:10:41 -0400
Received: (eyou send program); Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:10:22 +0800
Message-ID: <360291422.02247@cnnic.cn>
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Received: from unknown (HELO cnnicyao) (159.226.6.18) by 159.226.7.146 with SMTP; Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:10:22 +0800
Message-ID: <005901c6eaa8$d2f191d0$1206e29f@cnnicyao>
From: Yao Jiankang <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta+ietf@siilo.fmi.fi>
References: <359811996.18208@cnnic.cn>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:10:23 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: hurtta+ietf@siilo.fmi.fi, ima@ietf.org
Subject: [EAI] Re: Comment about draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0689421895=="
Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org


as you said, implementation of RFC 3030 is not common while 8BITMIME is popular.

So implementing EAI with 8BITMIME support is easier than implementing EAI with BINARYMIME support.

On my view, I still prefer 8BITMIME support while announcing UTF8SMTP capability .


Yao Jiankang.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kari Hurtta" <hurtta+ietf@siilo.fmi.fi>
To: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>; <mao@cnnic.cn>
Cc: <hurtta+ietf@siilo.fmi.fi>; <ima@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:59 AM
Subject: Comment about draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-01.txt


> 
> draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-01.txt:
> 
> |   6.  Servers offering this extension MUST provide support for, and
> |       announce, the 8BITMIME extension [RFC1652].
> 
> 
> |   Support and use of this extension requires support for 8BITMIME.  It
> |   means that 8BITMIME MUST be advertised by the UTF8SMTP capability
> |   SMTP server.
> 
> 
> Perhaps also using of BINARYMIME (RFC 3030) is possible ?
> 
> At least both BODY=8BITMIME and BODY=BINARYMIME  are theoretically
> possible to occur with international mail.
> 
> ( Althoug implementation of RFC 3030 is not common. )
> 
> / Kari Hurtta
_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
IMA@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email