Re: [idn] RE: An idn protocolfor consideration in making therequirements

[C C Magnus Gustavsson <mag@lysator.liu.se>]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, ned.freed@innosoft.com wrote:

> If it only were this simple... The problem is that you can end up in
> situations where a message cannot move forward and also cannot get
> back to the originator. This is where mail is lost.

I can think of numerous ways in which this will be the case. I can't
however find a case in which this MUST be the case just because 8 bit
is used, that is where it's UNAVOIDABLE because of the 8 bit solution.

If we i e demand that all e-mails with non-ASCII addresses have an
ASCII only return adress we should be able to return it in any case.
(As long as, of course, this address is valid.)

> > During a transition period of one or a few years few people will want
> > to use non-ASCII addresses as sender addresses. If mailservers can't
> > handle non-ASCII domains after that, you either have to choose to use
> > ASCII only or not communicate with these people. It's not any
> > different from mailservers which refuse to accept 8 bit e-mails.
> 
> Actually, it is quite different in any number of ways, several of
> which I've already described in previous messages. Those of us who
> have substantive  operational experience with both the "just send 8"
> attempts of the late 80s as well as the 8bitMIME experience of the
> 90s know that things are not as simple nor as straightforward as you
> claim here.

I didn't say that it will be completely without problems. I said that
after a few years it'll work in most cases. Those of us who have
experience with QP all seem (more or less without exception) to think
that it's worth it. After all, we DO have 8BITMINE today.

/Magnus