Andrzej A. Filip:
> On 12/30/2013 04:55 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:09:12PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> >> Indeed. SMTPUTF8 support involves more than the 1% that says "I can
> >> do SMTPUTF8" in the EHLO handshake. There is a whole list of RFCs
> >> that need to be supported first.
> >
> > I think the RFCs in question are a mistake. A far simpler and
> > cleaner design would have been to extend Punycode to the local part
> > of the address. For some reason the IETF working group did not
> > choose the approach with the simplest migration path. There are
> > other IETF RFCs that never get much adoption, I hope and expect
> > that these will be among them.
>
> IMHO Extending punycode to local part may be a good option for "mostly
> ASCII" charsets (ISO-8859-X) but it may create (too) long names for
> "completely non ASCII charsets".
This transformation would be needed only when sending mail between
systems that don't support non-ASCII addresses. Just like MIME
8-7bit conversion, the need for it goes away over time.
Wietse
