On 12/30/2013 04:55 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:09:12PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > >> Indeed. SMTPUTF8 support involves more than the 1% that says "I can >> do SMTPUTF8" in the EHLO handshake. There is a whole list of RFCs >> that need to be supported first. > > I think the RFCs in question are a mistake. A far simpler and > cleaner design would have been to extend Punycode to the local part > of the address. For some reason the IETF working group did not > choose the approach with the simplest migration path. There are > other IETF RFCs that never get much adoption, I hope and expect > that these will be among them.
IMHO Extending punycode to local part may be a good option for "mostly ASCII" charsets (ISO-8859-X) but it may create (too) long names for "completely non ASCII charsets". There is as always conflict between short term ease of transition and long term simplicity.
