On 2007-12-05 12:43:50 -0500, Guy Hulbert wrote: > On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 17:46 +0100, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > > If somebody comes up with a good proposal I'm all for it. > > Don't do it. > > I spent 40 minutes trying to find out about IDN yesterday before I made > this suggestion then. So, here is a proposal. > > ---- proposal > > 1. Don't do anything until there is an SMTP RFC which covers IDN.
You misunderstood what I wanted a proposal for. I did not want a
proposal for IDN. I wanted one for a generalization of the parser so
that plugins can be used to change the acceptable syntax.
There are two reasons why that would be a good thing:
1) The syntax is baroque. Moving the parser from the core to a plugin
would make the core cleaner.
2) The syntax doesn't fit everybody's needs:
a) Few people want to allow control characters in e-mail addresses.
Yet the parser must allow it because RFC 2821 says that control
characters in E-Mail addresses are legal. Of course you can write
a plugin which checks for "strange addresses" in the mail and rcpt
hook, but just using a different plugin than the default would be
cleaner.
b) Some people want to use qpsmtpd as a test platform for new SMTP
extensions. Of course those are the people which propably aren't
afraid of messing with the core, but again, just being able to
swap one plugin for another is cleaner.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | It took a genius to create [TeX],
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | and it takes a genius to maintain it.
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | That's not engineering, that's art.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- David Kastrup in comp.text.tex
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
