Hi Stephen,
At 10:12 PM 2/18/2017, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
The problem that I thought we may face is internationalized mailboxes
and domain names *are still ASCII* which encodes Unicode.
OK, I looked it up, and I was almost certainly wrong. The relevant
RFCs are actually 6531 (SMTPUTF8
Mark Sapiro writes:
> That doesn't really address my question. That has to do with
> internationalized email addresses. Granted the listname must be a valid
> local part of an email address, but that doesn't mean every valid local
> part has to be a valid list name.
The problem that I
On February 15, 2017 8:03:33 AM GMT+05:30, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>On 02/14/2017 10:52 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Mark Sapiro writes:
>>
>> > I'd like feedback on this. What are your thoughts on what
>characters
>> > should be allowed in list names?
>>
>> Uh, RFC 6532
On 02/14/2017 10:52 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Mark Sapiro writes:
>
> > I'd like feedback on this. What are your thoughts on what characters
> > should be allowed in list names?
>
> Uh, RFC 6532
That doesn't really address my question. That has to do with
internationalized email
Mark Sapiro writes:
> I'd like feedback on this. What are your thoughts on what characters
> should be allowed in list names?
Uh, RFC 6532
Probably that can wait for when we actually support it :-), but while
you're doing this we should (= I should when life gets sane ;-) make
sure that
On 02/12/2017 05:27 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> Certainly some narrowing is appropriate. We could just clamp it down as you
> suggest, understanding that there may already be lists in existence that use
> the more liberal character set, and acknowledging that we may want to relax
> the set based
On Feb 12, 2017, at 03:58 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
>Core validates listnames by ensuring the fqdn_listname is a valid email
>address. This is too liberal. RFC 5321 allows many characters in the
>local part of a list name. We don't allow quite all of them, but we
>allow this set