[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Query: Internationalization in addressing components?
At 09:33 AM 8/19/00 -0700, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
At 18:52 18/08/2000 -0700, Dan Wing wrote:
It's a good idea.
But how would a receiver decide if the following three forms are supposed
to be equal?
Perhaps we could just require that text after ATTN, ORG, OFNA, STR, and
ADDR shouldn't be matched exactly?
The most common reason for ATTN is to print on fax cover pages; there is
no standard way to transfer the ATTN information across a T.4/T.20 fax call.
So the important thing is to make sure the offramp (fax sender)
understands the character set; exact matching isn't that important.
I think this opens a can of worms about just how far it is sensible to take
the RFC2403/2504/et.seq. addressing framework.
When used as part of an e-mail local address, the normal expectation is
that exact matching is required to select a mailbox. But as interpretation
is defined to be under control of the receiving server, some flexibility is
Personally, I think that putting this kind of non-addressing information in
an e-mail address is going to lead to problems. I think there has been a
desire to carry all of X.400 addressing elements into some kind of e-mail
format. I would say that it may be reasonable to map all the _addressing_
elements in this way, but that non-addressing elements should be treated in
some other way.
PS: As an additional point, I think that RFC 204x explicitly disallows the
use of =?...?= encoding forms in address fields.