--On Friday, May 11, 2018 20:17 +0300 Alexey Melnikov
<aamelnikov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Deploying EAI for IETF mailing lists would be a big
> undertaking in itself. We can cross this bridge when we need
> to cross it.
My only concern is that, unless the IETF is going to consider
making SMTPUTF8 "not recommended", we do nothing that would
either make deploying it harder or encourage non-conforming
hacks that would have the same effect. Neither of those require
deploying it or deciding it would be a good idea for IETF
mailing lists (personally, I think it would not be), only that
we think about the possibility. From that perspective, "cross
that bridge when we come to it" sounds a bit like "put heads in
sand".
>> With the understanding that I'm holding my nose while saying
>> this (because I have been happy to see the convention fade
>> from use), we already have a widely-supported and recognized
>> convention for this type of encoding and I wonder why those
>> who have been involved with this effort rejected it. That
>> would be to use
>> alexey%example.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> The short answer is that Henrik tries to use % and found that
> various software (including some non IETF mailing lists, if I
> remember correctly) was buggy and assigned some special
> meaning to % that made it unsuitable for our purposes.
Very good. If the possibility was considered and caused its own
set of problems, then I'm happy avoiding it. I believe it
would be helpful to document what issues have been found in some
way, if only because that information would be helpful if we
ever try to advance 5321/5322 on the standards track.
thanks and best regards,
john
