[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Can we back up a bit and ask some basic questions?An alternate model
At 7:53 PM +0100 2/24/03, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> What is the actual deployment advantage of a ESMTP extension over just
It makes SMTP support non-ASCII for email addresses. Compared to
using IMAA-ACE, the advantage is that an ESMTP extension doesn't
require the use of a punycode encoder/decoder.
Are you saying that using a punycode decoder when writing to a
message store is *harder* than doing an ESMTP extension that might
involve bouncing or dropping mail? That seems kind of extreme, given
that the punycode decoding is completely optional. And I don't
understand why you talk about a punycode encoder; that is never
needed by the SMTP server in IMAA-ACE.
What would the actual
deployment advantage of using IMAA-ACE over an ESMTP extension with an
ACE fallback be?
That there would be no required change to the deployed base of SMTP
servers out there, some of which are in hardware and cannot be
upgraded. Internet mail is already deployed; forcing a change when it
isn't needed is just plain bad design. Localizing the protocol change
to one place makes it easier to deploy and makes it more predicable
for end users.
Do I need to go on?
If you want to deploy as fast as possible and only require changes in
transport end points, yes. If you want to upgrade to a clean and
easily maintined design in the long-term, no.
In what way is using a new ESMTP extension more "easily maintained"?
That certainly is not the experience in the SMTP world so far.
Clean is in the eye of the beholder. You and I like UTF-8, but many
people don't. Forcing them to use our preferred charset isn't a good
practice if it can be avoided.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium