Re: [EAI] [IETF] Content Issues [

Shawn Steele <> Sun, 16 October 2016 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E26512943B for <>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.003
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JMpQ9WPl_lcR for <>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C653A129404 for <>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=5c3muNZU2KdblwIZUgny516x5BPrV+cnA9OkrqX7dDg=; b=O3ttaOPuxXWEQScHpcQiYfGQo/8FSGAOichvHWTF/1ZR4J/zJM2cl6SH2ne88WaM+QnalLPm0Jcvsr5bNokZW8lWf2aVhRLrXGbc9SIEa/ZUW+Kml7lf+vY5zGwFZmuA9RRNAZ+Pns5v31EhzF3bY4a/T2olhHxz47MV4YB7Q48=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.659.11; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:39:54 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0659.025; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:39:54 +0000
From: Shawn Steele <>
To: Ned Freed <>
Thread-Topic: [EAI] [IETF] Content Issues [
Thread-Index: AdInSGoNlaqwg5dxQCSUup0Iyls68gAbauUzAAM7yRA=
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:39:54 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 955fa24b-a187-4347-f8a8-08d3f5daacf8
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MWHPR03MB2815; 7:S76goke1XLX8k3nJGoGEm8lAUuPY5scCGAb2M9J70wLFtIHlnIIKY1aXjRb4OZo7UqQDI/ds/cLdQ1YCnfjUYopFwNf1YE/mE2+h6tbMGlGs7foCd04ipbJ0PUDUks3r7iIIjx8L1KSjragOKk9Dsl8AjRj2Lv8nI84U3D9Us7F+GqHU1/rQnz41uIbhM+iYzA7O9jzw3N/1CEUidTSaOta1Y4yAT5C9VXWlHpBeDohSXslnohZW0QhqTY5nXeNLKrpzWIw+PAhgy/YPjSmz7ViFAFQG1HE1+ppBxhGLgA6T53uf79g/ym0MytY00uesJkAs2NcvzA2z8r7tzVlcXTjRCp7HJ/7Xdx0nxfLh1C1LZd0wUYlQJ+YVODEeZ/5l
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:MWHPR03MB2815;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:MWHPR03MB2815; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:MWHPR03MB2815;
x-forefront-prvs: 00979FCB3A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(13464003)(199003)(189002)(377454003)(3846002)(86612001)(3280700002)(97736004)(8990500004)(5002640100001)(54356999)(76176999)(50986999)(77096005)(10400500002)(5005710100001)(10090500001)(10290500002)(19580405001)(19580395003)(33656002)(76576001)(189998001)(2950100002)(6916009)(11100500001)(105586002)(101416001)(106356001)(122556002)(8936002)(74316002)(66066001)(305945005)(7846002)(7736002)(68736007)(2906002)(99286002)(87936001)(81166006)(7696004)(110136003)(86362001)(2900100001)(92566002)(586003)(81156014)(8676002)(4326007)(9686002)(6116002)(102836003)(5660300001)(3660700001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR03MB2815;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Oct 2016 15:39:54.0863 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR03MB2815
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [EAI] [IETF] Content Issues [
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:39:57 -0000

I suppose it might depend on how it is configured?  I suppose the on-behalf-of or whatever could be tricky, but it is already munging the message.  So maybe it could just ignore the sender info?

Certainly there isn't anything blocking the digest version?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ned Freed [] 
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 6:48 AM
To: Shawn Steele <>
Subject: Re: [EAI] [IETF] Content Issues [

> > Seriously, at least in the near term, I'd oppose letting anyone post 
> > to an IETF list from a non-ASCII address.  This has been discussed 
> > before in other contexts, but it is important that we, as a 
> > standards body, be able to identify who is posting to our lists and trying to influence outcomes.

> I'm confused because I don't see how EAI addresses would be less 
> accountable than ASCII addresses.  Sure, they might be less readable, 
> but surely people could have JohnDoe@SpecialServer.whatever and we'd 
> have no clue who they "really" were.

You're missing the point. If I send to an IETF list from an EAI address, the message I send is going to be an EAI message. Given the way EAI works, that message is only going to reach the (currently small) subset of list participants for whom the path to their eyeballs is EAI-capable at every step along the way.

The effect of this is to essentially to create a EAI-capable subset of any discussion. That breaks accontability, as John notes. But perhaps more important is the fact that it also breaks the entire open model.

> I'd vote for "eat our own dogfood"

Like it or not, that's not possible at this point. Perhaps that will change at some point in the future when the penetration of EAI has increased, but until it does the best we could offer is to allow EAI addresses to receive the list but not post to the list. And I don't think that's of sufficient utility to bother implementing.