-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Viktor Dukhovni said the following on 30/12/2013 04:55:
>> 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. > Agreed. Why not use the same algorithm used by IDNA (RFC3490)? There are already an adopted RFC and a working algorithm, why reinvent the wheel? Otherwise we could end up with an email address whit a local part encoded with algorithm A and a domain name encoded with algorithm B. Ciao, luigi - -- / +--[Luigi Rosa]-- \ Law of the Perversity of Nature: You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlLBLgYACgkQ3kWu7Tfl6ZSNhwCeMBQLUYSF3+mtCqkOFMddo87Y a8EAoLhlakYzz1Epxb1RiPlE0caQ9o/z =0air -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
