Re: First strawman for UTF-8 headers proposal

["Adam M. Costello" <ietf-imaa.amc+0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > For the domain part, your proposal is willing to downgrade to an ACE
> > rather than bounce the message.  We might as well define an ACE for
> > the local part too, so that there would never be a need to bounce
> > messages.
>
> If we add that to my current proposal, then there are *three* possible
> names that a mailbox might have; two of them are readable, one of them
> isn't.

Sorry, I didn't follow that.  Could you please spell it out for me?

> > Every protocol that carries messages will need an analogous tagging
> > mechanism.
>
> I'm not clear what you mean here.

POP and IMAP, for example.  They transfer messages from one agent
to another, like SMTP does.  Therefore, if SMTP needs a negotiation
mechanism (UTF-8-HEADERS) to verify that the receiving agent can
handle the new header format, then POP and IMAP will need an analogous
negotiation mechanism for the same reason.  Maybe NNTP too, though I'm
not clear on the relationship between news article headers and mail
headers.  And any other protocol that transfers mail messages from one
agent to another.

AMC