It appears that Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com> said: >Pawel, > >I agree that the protocol should not venture into policy decisions. The draft >could add an alternate email that can be either an ASCII >or an SMTPUTP8 along with allowing the existing email to be an ASCII or an >SMTUPUTF8. With this, the protocol can support the desired >server policy with the ability to have an alternate email attribute. This is >pretty much what was in -17 without a transition period >or the requirement to have an ASCII email, which is a policy decision and not >a protocol decision.
I can think of all sorts of reasons one might want a backup email address, e.g., on a different mail system that has different filtering rules and failure modes than your regular system. So I agree it's both a good idea and needn't be tied to SMTPUTF8. R's, John _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
