Re: encodings (was Re: Last Last Call)

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Claus Färber (list-ietf-wg-apps-usefor@faerber.muc.de)
Date: Sun Jul 07 2002 - 05:52:00 CDT


Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> schrieb/wrote:
> I don't think it is quite as quick as that. You could not use NAMEPREP for
> local-parts (some other variant of STRINGPREP would be needed, at the
> least).

If you chose your label delimiters wisely, you probably don't have to
make any further changes at all.

> And you would need to restrict the definition of local-part so as
> to leave room for some way to detect automatically which ones needed to be
> decoded and which ones really were that funny string.

It's very unlikely that local-parts be that funny to be misinterpreted
as encoded strings.

> The the main problem is that nobody is actively trying to generate such a
> spec at the moment (and it is a job for the mail people, not for us).

Ack.

Claus

-- 
------------------------ http://www.faerber.muc.de/ ------------------------
OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.