Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> At any rate, I added RFC6531/6855 support to mutt. Please pull:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/arnt/mutt/commits/a83a4387c35384eccd3a11d74b8db4ebbb185d30
>
> Some earlier changesets need to be reverted. mutt_idna.c may have been a
> fine idea, but using idna in mail didn't ge
I will reply properly when I am back at my keyboard this weekend. Just
one thing now: the two extensions are subtly but crucially
incompatible.
Nothing in 653x requires a receiver to support idna (or
a-label encoding of local parts), or to treat them the same way as
u-labels. The sender has t
a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no wrote:
> I will reply properly when I am back at my keyboard this weekend. Just one
> thing now: the two extensions are subtly but crucially incompatible.
>
> Nothing in 653x requires a receiver to support idna (or a-label encoding of
> local parts), or to treat them the s
Suppose you receive mail from my Unicode address. When you compose your
reply, you do not know whether my SMTP server accepts an a-label form
of any domains in your reply, so when you want to formulate a Unicode
domain in your reply (header or SMTP), you cannot write if/then logic
to pick the b
a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no wrote:
> Suppose you receive mail from my Unicode address. When you compose your
> reply, you do not know whether my SMTP server accepts an a-label form of any
> domains in your reply
Not true. Please again see rfc6531 section 3.2, paragraph 2, sentence 3.
> , so when yo
I will reread and answer when I have a screen bigger than a keyhole,
OK?
Arnt
