From nobody Wed May 7 03:59:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF411A06CA for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 03:59:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yzrAh9z9BdjU for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 03:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9125A1A06D6 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 03:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F7FCFA00CB; Wed, 7 May 2014 10:59:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399460364-28427-28427/11/22; Wed, 7 May 2014 10:59:24 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 12:59:24 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/LlSjIxd1Il4eKrAWkITYBUHWBmg Subject: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 10:59:34 -0000 Hi, I've run into two problems that need settling. I'll raise them in order. The first one: Is this a legal SMTP command? mail from: I see nothing to forbid it, but I tend to think that it ought to be forbidden. Allowing xn-- forms gives us no added value AFAICT and complicates life for the poor downtrodden implementers among us. Arnt From nobody Wed May 7 04:51:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15931A0709 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 04:51:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q26os9LqsH0Z for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 04:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862681A0708 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 04:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1WhzhS-0002vI-0t; Wed, 07 May 2014 07:07:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 07:07:45 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Arnt Gulbrandsen , ima@ietf.org Message-ID: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: klensin@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/_eWT1sl1pwgABeeUiexCy7WXkl4 Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 11:51:04 -0000 --On Wednesday, 07 May, 2014 12:59 +0200 Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Hi, > > I've run into two problems that need settling. I'll raise them > in order. The first one: Is this a legal SMTP command? > > mail from: > > I see nothing to forbid it, but I tend to think that it ought > to be forbidden. Allowing xn-- forms gives us no added value > AFAICT and complicates life for the poor downtrodden > implementers among us. We discussed it at length. While I suppose we could have said "bad idea" more strongly, the interoperability implications of forbidding an address that is valid for RFC 5321 SMTP would be pretty serious. Remember too that having things like that be valid was in important design consideration for IDNA. From nobody Wed May 7 05:18:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930D41A0639 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 05:18:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bq1dAcgZMcMA for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 05:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A181A01D4 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 05:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62EB7FA00CC; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:18:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399465127-28427-28427/11/23; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:18:47 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 14:18:47 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/MSXFS9y3_ssDSQEYe0yC_p906Ow Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 12:18:57 -0000 You discussed it at length before I started paying attention. OK. Well, nothing says asdf@xn-blah.blah has to be considered equal to=20 asdf@b=C5=82=C3=A4h.blah, so I'll just ignore that, which I think will = make them=20 different in practice. Arnt From nobody Wed May 7 07:01:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2FE1A02C5 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:01:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.929 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.929 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jEqGSXghaxSx for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [66.199.183.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C458A1A007C for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ms5.on1.afilias-ops.info ([10.109.8.9] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Wi2P9-0004Ug-3k for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2014 14:01:03 +0000 Received: from mail-qc0-f177.google.com ([209.85.216.177]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Wi2P9-0001dH-3S for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2014 14:01:03 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id i17so1092174qcy.22 for ; Wed, 07 May 2014 07:00:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=LdLeM84N+3LsBF9G4p4WrRP7AWuuwGJFDZPInxv+w3I=; b=RgmoAFxNrxLLj6uIRremL5NxkxQo2KrgMmvRYCf/nfq4FzzZJklA3WJCEIoi39r8H2 KE/3wcyG1xWKuGKggVBT09JzxbL0Mvesw7ovTD7oIb/PGP+B9gWIRqNkpE1BXmXOUnng Z1fR6gD4HdFBUgK4FUYRmbLPOEENSBLPKns2R8RT8bx0KSVRIHAf0BFlFWbaePdFrqCq baUhctrVIxVIHutaau5CWWpnYK2FZq7A0WHpA8O8I8FTM6a7iwkig3bCI1JmYK5j8SIo mHDBvbCX72CeogQnmFx0x3jba5HvVvKUkeDdHOfw8WJCugNhMNN4LHxj2LjmW0xlTlzg Z7Kw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlf/ReCuiYH65Wg1gS76SODXXHmbK1jqbj6VlFhIy8g2a23gAc8DMu7csjyNRjb77LjwyA0BNEk8RgPorOxc9fjex4+EQTA3Aky3tEt40f1nxv9cmA= X-Received: by 10.224.54.68 with SMTP id p4mr65318765qag.47.1399471257714; Wed, 07 May 2014 07:00:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.54.68 with SMTP id p4mr65318712qag.47.1399471257449; Wed, 07 May 2014 07:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.97.130 with HTTP; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:00:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 10:00:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: Joseph Yee To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1132f70a2cb20e04f8cfcb6a Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/T1iPk9pxxfPR8Eld7yk9jfM2SAk Cc: EAI WG Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 14:01:12 -0000 --001a1132f70a2cb20e04f8cfcb6a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Short version: The SMTP command is legal, but not encouraged (strongly). Especially this is Mail From. Long version: This is more of questions. Why in A-label? Are you just trying to determine whether to fail the transmission at that point? Or thinking of utilize it for certain situations? Best, Joseph P.S. And your second question? ;) On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > You discussed it at length before I started paying attention. OK. > > Well, nothing says asdf@xn-blah.blah has to be considered equal to > asdf@b=C5=82=C3=A4h.blah, so I'll just ignore that, which I think will ma= ke them > different in practice. > > Arnt > > > _______________________________________________ > IMA mailing list > IMA@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima > --001a1132f70a2cb20e04f8cfcb6a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Short version:
The SMTP comma= nd is legal, but not encouraged (strongly). Especially this is Mail From.= =C2=A0

Long version:
This is more of questions= .=C2=A0 Why in A-label? Are you just trying to determine whether to fail th= e transmission at that point? Or thinking of utilize it for certain situati= ons?

Best,
Joseph

P.S. And your second question? ;)

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen= <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> wrote:
You discussed it at length before I started = paying attention. OK.

Well, nothing says asdf@xn-blah.blah has to be considered equal to asdf@b= =C5=82=C3=A4h.blah, so I'll just ignore that, which I think will make t= hem different in practice.

Arnt


_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
IMA@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

--001a1132f70a2cb20e04f8cfcb6a-- From nobody Wed May 7 07:10:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A121A0778 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:10:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3GOpdZT90x1A for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014C61A031A for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:10:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7IQRRMOTS001NBR@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:05:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1399471502; bh=o6UQyGkqKehgtdIqeh8ipnHXruTq2dCYV3UTMsxu04I=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=W0xoIXzg94RS3YdQ5fruIPRzcuxaLL1NZJXTsXpXB1W3/n7oy6OHOw600MDk/Ghfl cagsfuFqZJcK384teDgNqiT7UOSrLZQUU/ZeP7Acb/N8iMgZMWptMHRcy8yFFM/Zyv 03G7xoWvBOELYkd5PtcLh7lM3/BWA0v1cK1P8qTM= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1; Format=flowed Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7EXXVVVA8000052@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2014 07:04:57 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+ima@mrochek.com Message-id: <01P7IQROVSMK000052@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 07:04:05 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 07 May 2014 12:59:24 +0200" References: To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/c6jnNy6ijVMc1mImmI3klBeNnVA Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 14:10:13 -0000 > Hi, > I've run into two problems that need settling. I'll raise them in order. > The first one: Is this a legal SMTP command? > mail from: > I see nothing to forbid it, but I tend to think that it ought to be > forbidden. Allowing xn-- forms gives us no added value AFAICT and > complicates life for the poor downtrodden implementers among us. The implementation I'm working on supports it, and treats it as equivalent to the corresponding 8bit. Ned From nobody Wed May 7 07:19:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087211A0311 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:18:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.141 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5lWmoYsAcGTU for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674FC1A02C5 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (unknown [190.112.54.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00A958A031 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:18:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 10:18:52 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: ima@ietf.org Message-ID: <20140507141851.GB6729@crankycanuck.ca> References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/c9kJfgfv7eajyO3K4xnmxUItiAU Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 14:18:59 -0000 On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 02:18:47PM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Well, nothing says asdf@xn-blah.blah has to be considered equal to > asdf@błäh.blah, "Equal to" in what sense? Assuming that the xn--blah and błäh are corresponding A-label and U-label, then they have to be "considered equal" in some sense, since exactly one of those is going to be in the DNS. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@crankycanuck.ca From nobody Wed May 7 07:23:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA8E1A0319 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:23:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Mr3umhXen9R for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35521A00DF for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413D9FA00CB; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:23:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399472595-28427-28427/11/24; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:23:15 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 16:23:15 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01P7IQROVSMK000052@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <01P7IQROVSMK000052@mauve.mrochek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/h-LvO_eJev5jVHnxevnVZeo6E68 Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 14:23:25 -0000 On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:04:05 PM CEST, ned+ima@mrochek.com wrote: > The implementation I'm working on supports it, and treats it as > equivalent to the corresponding 8bit. Could you elaborate a bit on why you chose that precise behaviour? Arnt From nobody Wed May 7 07:24:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812971A02C5 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:24:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iU2FPS2c5bOF for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2260E1A0061 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Wi2lp-0003FH-KK; Wed, 07 May 2014 10:24:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 10:24:28 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Arnt Gulbrandsen , ima@ietf.org Message-ID: <511C4B2AAB5D7A5AB0D9F892@JCK-EEE10> In-Reply-To: References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: klensin@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/N3uF-tHG9Sh77awY8_9wd0d1_eg Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 14:24:35 -0000 --On Wednesday, 07 May, 2014 14:18 +0200 Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > You discussed it at length before I started paying attention. > OK. >=20 > Well, nothing says asdf@xn-blah.blah has to be considered > equal to asdf@b=C5=82=C3=A4h.blah, so I'll just ignore that, = which I > think will make them different in practice. Indeed, I would expect some problems if people try to compare full addresses for equality. Just as=20 user@example.net and=20 user@example.com are considered to be different even if the associated DNS entries are example.net. 0 MX smtp.example.net. example.com. 0 MX smtp.example.com. I'd assume that, depending on how and where they test, implementations might construe=20 asdf@xn-blah.blah asdf@b=C5=82=C3=A4h.blah as different, depending on how and where they test. That would violate the comparison rules of IDNA, but is tricky if one thought one were doing an SMTP comparison rather than an IDNA comparison. In particular, many SMTP MTA implementations require local configuration of all of the domain names for which the server will accept mail. Depending on how such a server is upgraded to EAI, and where in its code that information is used, one might want (or need) to configure both the A-label and U-label forms of the domain name. JianKang, please make a note that a comment about this should be included when 6531 is updated unless people are convinced that note should be in 6530, in which case Yangwoo and I should make that note. I've noted this on the Wiki page at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/eai/trac/wiki That page is probably a good place to leave notes to remind ourselves about issues to be considered for future revisions, but please do not expect me to maintain it. All: please do not introduce new materials or discussion into that Wiki page without raising them on the mailing list and, when you do so, identify the source (as I have done in the new entry). If nothing else, it should increase the odds that someone will pay attention to your point or question. thanks, john From nobody Wed May 7 07:34:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670DA1A0788 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:34:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RIwdJvXS5mox for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB711A077F for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Wi2vR-0003GP-W5; Wed, 07 May 2014 10:34:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 10:34:25 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Joseph Yee , Arnt Gulbrandsen Message-ID: <51CCAA2E15177505B7231D08@JCK-EEE10> In-Reply-To: References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: klensin@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/Ln4NEKW9FX9KYAu48I9xM_hl9SE Cc: EAI WG Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 14:34:33 -0000 --On Wednesday, 07 May, 2014 10:00 -0400 Joseph Yee wrote: >... > Long version: > This is more of questions. Why in A-label? Are you just > trying to determine whether to fail the transmission at that > point? Or thinking of utilize it for certain situations? FWIW, until EAI is really widely deployed, if I'm sending to, or, more important, from, a host that has a non-ASCII domain name but the relevant local-part is entirely ASCII, the conservative course of action is to use A-labels and then not request EAI services at all in the MAIL or RCTP commands, thereby avoiding the risk of rejection or final delivery problems because of EAI non-support. From there, it is a tiny step to A-label form addresses creeping into the EAI environment, especially if messages are resent. That may provide at least one reason why these things may show up even though we (and the "keep in native character form and convert to A-labels only at the DNS interface" argument essentially made in RFC 6055) would prefer that they not. john From nobody Wed May 7 07:38:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A161A0790 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:38:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jq6PCXvnAEbz for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9C41A078C for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5633EFA00CC; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399473506-28427-28427/11/25; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:38:26 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 16:38:26 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <6fe6afe1-a907-4410-a1f7-db095eea7ead@gulbrandsen.priv.no> In-Reply-To: References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/GE-x8Z5HKRQmmpB2CVee1NLjeo8 Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 14:38:35 -0000 I wrote: > Well, nothing says asdf@xn-blah.blah has to be considered equal=20 > to asdf@b=C5=82=C3=A4h.blah, so I'll just ignore that, which I think = will=20 > make them different in practice. I should perhaps elaborate on why I chose that. 1. xn-- is little-used today, so the argument to support it is weak. 2. I fear that if "mail from:" is legal, then it's=20 reasonable to assume that "mail from: smtputf8" is=20 legal too, and then "From: Asdf Jkl " is going to=20 happen, and all of a sudden MUAs and mail body parsers need to deal with=20 IDNA. Not very frequently. Similar to the infrequently used=20 Content-Disposition/filename parsing hackery many of them contain. But = I'd=20 prefer to block that somewhere. Arnt From nobody Wed May 7 07:44:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD601A0314 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:44:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XT2ET9Iu2m_3 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0145.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 375881A0311 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 07:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.142.21) by BY2PR03MB492.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.142.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.934.12; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:44:27 +0000 Received: from BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.142.21]) by BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.142.21]) with mapi id 15.00.0934.000; Wed, 7 May 2014 14:44:27 +0000 From: Shawn Steele To: "ima@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IDN domains and EAI Thread-Index: Ac9qAke8wr1pR/uPQSaPNWzYxKcapg== Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 14:44:26 +0000 Message-ID: <09b7b4b4cc824900bae8504b57e7efc5@BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [50.106.12.255] x-forefront-prvs: 0204F0BDE2 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(428001)(51444003)(189002)(199002)(83322001)(77096999)(99396002)(2656002)(87936001)(76576001)(99286001)(20776003)(19580405001)(64706001)(54356999)(19580395003)(50986999)(66066001)(77982001)(15975445006)(80022001)(86612001)(74316001)(79102001)(31966008)(76482001)(81342001)(74502001)(74662001)(4396001)(33646001)(15202345003)(101416001)(85852003)(21056001)(86362001)(92566001)(46102001)(81542001)(83072002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB492; H:BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/3D4U3Zofh3Vv-JIa1VnP1waR9Ac Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 14:44:40 -0000 Pj4gV2VsbCwgbm90aGluZyBzYXlzIGFzZGZAeG4tYmxhaC5ibGFoIGhhcyB0byBiZSBjb25zaWRl cmVkIGVxdWFsIHRvIA0KPj4gYXNkZkBiPz9oLmJsYWgsDQoNCj4iRXF1YWwgdG8iIGluIHdoYXQg c2Vuc2U/ICBBc3N1bWluZyB0aGF0IHRoZSB4bi0tYmxhaCBhbmQgYj8/aCBhcmUgDQo+Y29ycmVz cG9uZGluZyBBLWxhYmVsIGFuZCBVLWxhYmVsLCB0aGVuIHRoZXkgaGF2ZSB0byBiZSAiY29uc2lk ZXJlZCBlcXVhbCIgDQo+aW4gc29tZSBzZW5zZSwgc2luY2UgZXhhY3RseSBvbmUgb2YgdGhvc2Ug aXMgZ29pbmcgdG8gYmUgaW4gdGhlIEROUy4NCg0KSSB0aGluayB0aGUgcHVueWNvZGUgaGFjayBm b3JtIHNob3VsZCBiZSBzdHJvbmdseSBkaXNjb3VyYWdlZCBpbiBFQUkgbWFpbCwgYnV0IGFncmVl IHRoYXQgaXQgY2FuJ3QgYmUgZm9yYmlkZGVuLiAgSSB0aGluayB0aGF0IGNsZWFybHkgc29tZXdo ZXJlIGluIEROUyB0aGV5IHNob3VsZCByZXNvbHZlIHRvIHRoZSByaWdodCBwbGFjZSwgaG93ZXZl ciBkZXBlbmRpbmcgb24gdGhlIHNpdHVhdGlvbiBJJ20gbm90IHN1cmUgdGhhdCBhbGwgc2NlbmFy aW9zIG5lZWQgdG8ga25vdyB0aGF0IHRoZXkgYXJlIGVxdWFsLiAgRWc6ICBzaGF3bnN0ZUBtaWNy b3NvZnQuY29tIGFuZCBTaGF3bi5TdGVlbGVAbWljcm9zb2Z0LmNvbSBib3RoIGdvIHRvIHRoZSBz YW1lIG1haWxib3gsIGJ1dCBob3cgd291bGQgeW91ciBtYWlsIGNsaWVudCBrbm93IHRoYXQ/ICBE aXR0byBmb3Igc2hhd25AdGVycmF4Lm9yZyBhbmQgTDMtRzBATDMtRzAuY29tIHdoaWNoIGV2ZW4g aGF2ZSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgZG9tYWlucy4NCg0KU28gSSB0aGluayBpbiBtYW55IGNhc2VzIGl0J2Qg YmUgIm5pY2UiIGlmIGl0IHJlYWxpemVkIHRoZXkgd2VyZSB0aGUgc2FtZSwgYnV0IG5vdCBjcml0 aWNhbC4gIFRoZSBvbmUgc3BvdCB0aGF0IGl0J3MgcHJvYmFibHkgY3JpdGljYWwgaXMgb24gdGhl IHNlcnZlciBzaWRlIHNvIHRoYXQgaXQgZ29lcyB0byB0aGUgcmlnaHQgbWFpbGJveC4NCg0KLVNo YXduDQoNCu+jou+jkO+jp++jmyDvo6Lvo6Pvo5fvo5Tvo5kNCmh0dHA6Ly9ibG9ncy5tc2RuLmNv bS9zaGF3bnN0ZQ0KaHR0cDovL0wzLUcwLmJsb2dzcG90LmNvbQ0K From nobody Wed May 7 08:00:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836611A00DF for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 08:00:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B1cAW7f7D_Cf for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 08:00:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E1471A0092 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 08:00:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Wi3KB-0003Ii-BS; Wed, 07 May 2014 10:59:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 10:59:59 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Arnt Gulbrandsen , ima@ietf.org Message-ID: <49ED5D6F20BB8C5C89CE32CE@JCK-EEE10> In-Reply-To: <6fe6afe1-a907-4410-a1f7-db095eea7ead@gulbrandsen.priv.no> References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <6fe6afe1-a907-4410-a1f7-db095eea7ead@gulbrandsen.priv.no> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: klensin@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/khDnZZlrxYY-e-OrjC7-iJMVDgs Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 15:00:05 -0000 --On Wednesday, 07 May, 2014 16:38 +0200 Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > I wrote: >> Well, nothing says asdf@xn-blah.blah has to be considered >> equal to asdf@b=C5=82=C3=A4h.blah, so I'll just ignore that, = which I >> think will make them different in practice. >=20 > I should perhaps elaborate on why I chose that. >=20 > 1. xn-- is little-used today, so the argument to support it is > weak. I don't know if that is true. Someone from a place where IDNs are in heavy use to support scripts with little in common with Latin may want to comment. There is no question that making end users look at the things is a bad idea if there are any alternatives (again, especially for non-Latin strings). > 2. I fear that if "mail from:" is legal, > then it's reasonable to assume that "mail > from: smtputf8" is legal too, and then > "From: Asdf Jkl " is going to happen, and > all of a sudden MUAs and mail body parsers need to deal with > IDNA. Not very frequently. Similar to the infrequently used > Content-Disposition/filename parsing hackery many of them > contain. But I'd prefer to block that somewhere. Personal opinion: What Ned is doing is probably right, certainly for transport and probably for EAI-aware local handling. It would be rational for a final delivery server that "knows" it is injecting the message into a fully-i18n-capable environment (or that the message needs EAI anyway, e.g., for non-ASCII local parts) to upgrade any A-label forms it sees to U-labels (an advantage of the fully-reversible mappings in IDNA2008). =20 However, if some mail body scanner wanted to include a rule that said "only an idiot or an idiot-spammer would send around A-labels, so the message should be treated as suspect", that certainly would not violate any protocols. john From nobody Wed May 7 08:36:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D271D1A035B for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 08:36:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QiAyTSezFP2P for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 08:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89541A0311 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 08:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 678C5FA00CB; Wed, 7 May 2014 15:36:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399476978-28427-28427/11/26; Wed, 7 May 2014 15:36:18 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 17:36:17 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <49ED5D6F20BB8C5C89CE32CE@JCK-EEE10> References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <6fe6afe1-a907-4410-a1f7-db095eea7ead@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <49ED5D6F20BB8C5C89CE32CE@JCK-EEE10> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/EUsxBz8lk_9qD6PbUi9JHT_ccsU Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 15:36:26 -0000 On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:59:59 PM CEST, John C Klensin wrote: > Personal opinion: What Ned is doing is probably right, certainly > for transport and probably for EAI-aware local handling. Perhaps. But I fear the costs: Letting xn-- into bodies, letting phpmailer users get around a lack of EAI by using xn--, encouraging mail format upgrade by final delivery software. Arnt From nobody Wed May 7 12:24:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE9A1A089A for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:24:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qbab3Mlbi2fX for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0204.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7931A0864 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 12:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.142.21) by BY2PR03MB489.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.142.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.934.12; Wed, 7 May 2014 19:23:52 +0000 Received: from BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.142.21]) by BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.142.21]) with mapi id 15.00.0934.000; Wed, 7 May 2014 19:23:52 +0000 From: Shawn Steele To: "ima@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IDN domains and EAI Thread-Index: Ac9qKRshz8/XIq3CSWKx8VyymeAmiQ== Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 19:23:51 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:ed31::3] x-forefront-prvs: 0204F0BDE2 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(428001)(199002)(189002)(46102001)(76482001)(87936001)(2656002)(64706001)(76576001)(20776003)(81542001)(83322001)(92566001)(86362001)(33646001)(99396002)(74502001)(80022001)(21056001)(54356999)(81342001)(85852003)(99286001)(101416001)(31966008)(4396001)(79102001)(50986999)(74316001)(77982001)(77096999)(83072002)(74662001)(3826001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB489; H:BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/dZlZ7QEIXZeNhdbWQUIWamuYljQ Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 19:24:01 -0000 > Perhaps. But I fear the costs: Letting xn-- into bodies, letting phpmaile= r users get around a lack of EAI by using xn--, encouraging mail format upg= rade by final delivery software. I agree that it should be strongly discouraged, I wouldn't be opposed to st= ronger wording, or even forbidding it. Of course, then someone's gonna wan= t to "upgrade" from a non-EAI mail to an EAI mail (like when replying or fo= rwarding?) and then conversion might happen anyway, and there're going to b= e a lot of edge cases where punycode sneaks in unexpectedly (unfortunately)= . The direction we're going is that our networking APIs have Unicode interfac= es anyway. So all the punycode hackiness is hopefully hidden away in the g= uts of the APIs, and the applications just need to handle the Unicode forms= . Unless they have some sort of limited networking protocol that makes the= m do the conversion anyway, like the app is handling non-EAI SMTP. But the= goal is to hide the gory details away from most applications, most apps do= n't need to know how to do that. I'd prefer having DNS servers that advertised UTF-8 awareness too, then the= Punycode part could be handled transparently on those servers' sides. But= I really don't want punycode to escape its current sandbox any more than i= t has to. -Shawn From nobody Wed May 7 13:24:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD431A03B8 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 13:24:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.141 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HVJcHrO7ie0Q for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 13:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366FB1A03B7 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 13:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (unknown [190.112.54.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55B018A031 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 20:24:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 16:24:26 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: ima@ietf.org Message-ID: <20140507202426.GE6937@crankycanuck.ca> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/ozom-QcrRzzBK5gUzqIGlxg2WmE Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 20:24:35 -0000 On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:23:51PM +0000, Shawn Steele wrote: > > I'd prefer having DNS servers that advertised UTF-8 awareness too As I think I've tried to explain before, you can't have this because of the way the DNS is distributed. If we're going to get a name service that supports UTF-8 labels directly (presumably with a bunch of normalization rules &c.), then it's going to be in DNSng. I am prepared to have that conversation, but it's not something to have in passing when talking about EAI. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@crankycanuck.ca From nobody Wed May 7 15:23:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6461A0406 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 15:23:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yFHgZjNh_C3A for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 15:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ECBC1A0404 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 15:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7J807GUEO001ODS@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 7 May 2014 15:18:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1399501092; bh=C1SHjVHmr2uEvgqM3SCCJM+kyEIYZHIzAwG4NO3L/HI=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=ciHc8/SdsbayeSVIPp1NgPRQ+0vCu/pr7yBwsZWPee9fuQ1jdkba0oRiInuE+xbd6 m58bUd9gq6VLgZ2XgCEv0Whk1cKrBy2BZ50SBqO3Z9JLCUjBscLwZ5d/OiPJSsnhtU aYcLol6kKQLGbARLkNK8MnUnwPSEAORM/FIuBBg8= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7EXXVVVA8000052@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 07 May 2014 15:18:10 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+ima@mrochek.com Message-id: <01P7J805ZIXQ000052@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 15:13:45 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 07 May 2014 16:24:26 -0400" <20140507202426.GE6937@crankycanuck.ca> References: <20140507202426.GE6937@crankycanuck.ca> To: Andrew Sullivan Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/nGD4fq1YrpD3XzwPIs7xBe_-zfg Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 22:23:19 -0000 > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:23:51PM +0000, Shawn Steele wrote: > > > > I'd prefer having DNS servers that advertised UTF-8 awareness too > As I think I've tried to explain before, you can't have this because > of the way the DNS is distributed. If we're going to get a name > service that supports UTF-8 labels directly (presumably with a bunch > of normalization rules &c.), then it's going to be in DNSng. > I am prepared to have that conversation, but it's not something to > have in passing when talking about EAI. And given this reality, the two forms are necessarily equivalent in some sense. And it's not really the same as having two different domains with the same MX or A records. Finally, given that EAI has been slow to standardize and deploy, and given how these things tend to work, I believe the safest course of action is to assume leakage of a-labels into email addresses and act accordingly. Ned From nobody Wed May 7 20:19:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28061A02B8 for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 20:19:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SCDniE1-PX4j for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 20:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 451941A01FD for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 20:19:10 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO healthyao-think) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Thu, 08 May 2014 11:18:42 +0800 Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 11:18:42 +0800 From: "Jiankang Yao" To: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" , ima References: X-Priority: 3 X-Has-Attach: no X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.92[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2014050811173387114136@cnnic.cn> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart378364441455_=----" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/dua8otgaiFlFs3iGeoKbMYPnbn4 Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: yaojk List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 03:19:14 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart378364441455_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQpiYXNlZCBvbiBSRkM2NTMxLCBSRkM1MzIxIGFuZCBSRkM1ODkwLCAibWFpbCBmcm9tOjxwb3N0 bWFzdGVyQHhuLS02Y2FhYS5ubz4iIHNob3VsZCBiZSBsZWdhbC4NCg0KYW5vdGhlciBxdWVzdGlv biBpcyB0aGF0DQogIElmIGNsaWVudCBzbXRwIHNlbmQgdGhlIGNvbW1hbmQgIm1haWwgZnJvbTo8 cG9zdG1hc3RlckB4bi0tNmNhYWEubm8+IiwgaXMgaXQgcG9zc2libGUgdGhhdCBzZXJ2ZXIgc210 cCByZWdhcmQgaXQgYW5kIHVzZSBpdCBhcyAibWFpbCBmcm9tOjxwb3N0bWFzdGVyQHUtbGFiZWwu bm8+Ij8NCg0KaWYgdGhhdCBpcyBvaywgdGhlIGltcGxlbWVudG9ycyBjYW4gY29udmVydCB0aGUg YS1sYWJlbCBpbnRvIHUtbGFiZWwgaW5zdGVhZCBvZiBmb3JiaWRkaW5nIGl0Lg0KDQoNCg0KDQoN CkppYW5rYW5nIFlhbw0KDQpGcm9tOiBBcm50IEd1bGJyYW5kc2VuDQpEYXRlOiAyMDE0LTA1LTA3 IDE4OjU5DQpUbzogaW1hDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbRUFJXSBJRE4gZG9tYWlucyBhbmQgRUFJDQpIaSwN Cg0KSSd2ZSBydW4gaW50byB0d28gcHJvYmxlbXMgdGhhdCBuZWVkIHNldHRsaW5nLiBJJ2xsIHJh aXNlIHRoZW0gaW4gb3JkZXIuIA0KVGhlIGZpcnN0IG9uZTogSXMgdGhpcyBhIGxlZ2FsIFNNVFAg Y29tbWFuZD8NCg0KICAgbWFpbCBmcm9tOjxwb3N0bWFzdGVyQHhuLS02Y2FhYS5ubz4NCg0KSSBz ZWUgbm90aGluZyB0byBmb3JiaWQgaXQsIGJ1dCBJIHRlbmQgdG8gdGhpbmsgdGhhdCBpdCBvdWdo dCB0byBiZSANCmZvcmJpZGRlbi4gQWxsb3dpbmcgeG4tLSBmb3JtcyBnaXZlcyB1cyBubyBhZGRl ZCB2YWx1ZSBBRkFJQ1QgYW5kIA0KY29tcGxpY2F0ZXMgbGlmZSBmb3IgdGhlIHBvb3IgZG93bnRy b2RkZW4gaW1wbGVtZW50ZXJzIGFtb25nIHVzLg0KDQpBcm50DQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpJTUEgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpJTUFAaWV0 Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaW1h ------=_001_NextPart378364441455_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
based on RFC6531, RFC5321 and RFC5890,= =20 "mail from:<postmaster@xn--6caaa.no>" should be legal.
 
another question is that
  If client smtp send the command= =20 "mail from:<postmaster@xn--6caaa.no>", is it possible that serv= er=20 smtp regard it and use it as=20 "mail from:<postmaster@u-label.no>"?
 
if that is ok, the implementors=20 can convert the a-label into u-label instead=20 of forbidding it.
 
 
Jiankang Yao
 
Date: 2014-05-07 18:59
To: ima
Subject: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI
Hi,
 
I've run into two problems that need&nb= sp;settling. I'll raise them in order. 
The first one: Is this a legal SMT= P command?
 
   mail from:<postmaster@xn--6caaa.no>
 
I see nothing to forbid it, but I&= nbsp;tend to think that it ought to be&= nbsp;
forbidden. Allowing xn-- forms gives us = ;no added value AFAICT and 
complicates life for the poor downtrodden&nb= sp;implementers among us.
 
Arnt
 
_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
IMA@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
------=_001_NextPart378364441455_=------ From nobody Thu May 8 12:13:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A8A1A00F4 for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 12:13:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vrORJOjhYJvn for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 12:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1blp0185.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.185]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857541A00FE for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 12:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.142.21) by BY2PR03MB492.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.142.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.934.12; Thu, 8 May 2014 19:13:09 +0000 Received: from BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.142.21]) by BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.142.21]) with mapi id 15.00.0934.000; Thu, 8 May 2014 19:13:09 +0000 From: Shawn Steele To: "ima@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IDN domains and EAI ( Thread-Index: Ac9q8Aj4vPPajBAITMi8mhbBfMdTVQ== Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 19:13:08 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:ee31::2] x-forefront-prvs: 0205EDCD76 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(428001)(189002)(199002)(76576001)(81542001)(92566001)(86612001)(74316001)(2656002)(99286001)(81342001)(85852003)(83072002)(19580405001)(83322001)(50986999)(80022001)(19580395003)(20776003)(64706001)(54356999)(77096999)(99396002)(79102001)(87936001)(46102001)(31966008)(74502001)(74662001)(76482001)(33646001)(4396001)(77982001)(86362001)(21056001)(101416001)(24736002)(3826001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB492; H:BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/CvsfVbTNgpbv8T_MG4-UHTERcZo Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI ( X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:13:24 -0000 > If we're going to get a name service that supports UTF-8 labels directly = (presumably with a bunch of normalization rules &c.), then it's going to be= in DNSng. > I am prepared to have that conversation, but it's not something to have i= n passing when talking about EAI. Totally, but it impacts this conversation because we shouldn't presume that= A-labels are something we must always live with. If it's even a possibili= ty that some future DNSng work would be Unicode aware, we shouldn't build i= n unnecessary dependencies in unrelated things like EAI. That would just m= ake it harder to detangle later. > Finally, given that EAI has been slow to standardize and deploy, and > given how these things tend to work, I believe the safest course of actio= n > is to assume leakage of a-labels into email addresses and act accordingly= . Definitely, I'm just trying to make sure it's understood that such leakage = isn't desirable, merely unfortunate. > based on RFC6531, RFC5321 and RFC5890, "mail from:" should be legal. Legal I think, but it should be strongly discouraged for SMTPUTF8 > if that is ok, the implementors can convert the a-label into u-label inst= ead of forbidding it. I think the a form should be discouraged, however it I were writing the app= I'd probably convert them if I saw them. I don't think that either end sh= ould assume the other end is going to convert them though, and that servers= /clients should assume that the other end is going to fail with a-labels wh= en SMTPUTF8 is presented. In other words I think everyone should assume then need to send a "clean" U= TF-8 stream without any of the legacy baggage. -Shawn From nobody Fri May 9 00:25:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221851A01FD for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 00:25:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TdLa9DoaZQ4O for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 00:25:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0E91A01F8 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 00:25:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734DBFA032D; Fri, 9 May 2014 07:25:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399620317-4023-4023/12/2; Fri, 9 May 2014 07:25:17 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 09:25:16 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> In-Reply-To: References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/ZUqjBPoq9sdOO0jfwJQ-TQa6Z8g Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 07:25:27 -0000 I'm sorry I missed the question. On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:00:57 PM CEST, Joseph Yee wrote: > This is more of questions. Why in A-label? Are you just trying > to determine whether to fail the transmission at that point? Or > thinking of utilize it for certain situations? I'm adding EAI support to an MTA, methodically working through the code, and at one point in the code the question arose. I don't have any particular desire, so I chose to do what was easiest (nothing else seems to justify added effort). Arnt From nobody Fri May 9 00:30:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E7C1A01FD for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 00:30:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UB-IVCHiP1eL for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 00:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9301A01F8 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 00:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1040BFA032D; Fri, 9 May 2014 07:30:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399620640-4023-4023/12/3; Fri, 9 May 2014 07:30:40 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 09:30:40 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <7c420cc4-2455-42ff-ab25-50a9492656cc@gulbrandsen.priv.no> In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/i6bQPJMB23Oq0T9TffxW-SSsXzI Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 07:30:50 -0000 On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:59:24 PM CEST, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > I've run into two problems that need settling. I'll raise them > in order. The second (of three, now): It would be good to have something like example.com. I found one piece of documentation that used example.com as example domain, but I'm not sure whether "example" was meant to be an a-label or u-label. I don't see anything reserved. Has any of you made a suitable domain? Arnt From nobody Fri May 9 03:30:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18EA1A0243 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 03:30:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32OtTOgSHx5j for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 03:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C101A018C for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 03:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Wii4h-0008vl-7d for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 09 May 2014 06:30:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 06:30:42 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: ima@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: klensin@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/oYc5kgF8UnSfogHBz3elEY8bLfo Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 10:30:54 -0000 One added observation for those who are inclined to make changes to domains from A-label form to U-label form after initial submission. Remember that a non-EAI-aware implementation is almost certain to use A-labels if it can handle a non-ASCII address at all (or the user is likely to slip non-ASCII domains past it by using A-labels). My recollection is that, when we tried to get the SPF, DKIM, and DMARC folks to pay attention to EAI addresses and IDNs, they weren't very interested. So, with the understanding that I haven't researched this and have no idea what the answers are, I suggest that anyone contemplating changing the form of an address carefully review those specs, figure out if it would invalidate the signatures, and, if so, whether that is significant. After the DMARC mailing list debacle, it would be good to not be surprised. john From nobody Fri May 9 04:07:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB7F1A0282 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 04:07:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qmIExxgMy8pS for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 04:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545FE1A026B for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 04:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Wiidw-00090I-Fn; Fri, 09 May 2014 07:07:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 07:07:08 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Arnt Gulbrandsen , ima@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: klensin@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/HpF-bbbzeicXYAzWvuqoXm7gEiY Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 11:07:15 -0000 p.s. If anyone does the SPF/ DKIM/ DMARC analysis, please post here -- I imagine several of us are interested. john From nobody Fri May 9 05:16:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482571A0286 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 05:16:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.618 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bdcz5HB896Zc for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 05:15:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esv4-mav04.corp.linkedin.com (esv4-mav04.corp.linkedin.com [69.28.149.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ACDF1A0295 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 05:15:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linkedin.com; i=@linkedin.com; q=dns/txt; s=proddkim1024; t=1399637754; x=1431173754; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=VyZshFpTEXXeqPXzs4FxuAIDCpCxhtuhGuaSHD3Lj6c=; b=sBaahTkKhcZBLiukJ70xUt8mJbx1qVM/mE0KUho0v+T1KisQjqfxtHWp puos2fOgOHzwIf/o5kQrfdw8tGd8wHAwCR0Cocqt80BR9m07dLs6gRs4N EFXnj9MmKf9G7+400YYSP00F0lWYacr/QhvOSc525mhdpg+aj+cG3WY6g U=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1018,1389772800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="120498336" Received: from esv4-exctest.linkedin.biz (172.18.46.60) by ESV4-HT01.linkedin.biz (172.18.46.235) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Fri, 9 May 2014 05:15:51 -0700 Received: from ESV4-MBX03.linkedin.biz ([fe80::14ba:eaea:c913:fa88]) by esv4-exctest.linkedin.biz ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 9 May 2014 05:15:50 -0700 From: Franck Martin To: John C Klensin Thread-Topic: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI Thread-Index: AQHPa1fSyRvoIq5cGUy1DTdKkDdF/ps4gh0AgAAdYAA= Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 12:15:50 +0000 Message-ID: <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com> References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.18.46.252] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ED590432-C20F-41BD-8D0A-F8F1692635A4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/-0A15rnMtCn_xQByjvK-ycHUF0o Cc: "ima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [EAI] IDN domains and EAI X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 12:16:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_ED590432-C20F-41BD-8D0A-F8F1692635A4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 9, 2014, at 6:30 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > One added observation for those who are inclined to make changes > to domains from A-label form to U-label form after initial > submission. Remember that a non-EAI-aware implementation is > almost certain to use A-labels if it can handle a non-ASCII > address at all (or the user is likely to slip non-ASCII domains > past it by using A-labels). My recollection is that, when we > tried to get the SPF, DKIM, and DMARC folks to pay attention to > EAI addresses and IDNs, they weren't very interested. >=20 My recollection is slightly different than yours.=20 I got a spec changed in last call to avoid the group syntax in From: = header becomes a new weak standard. --Apple-Mail=_ED590432-C20F-41BD-8D0A-F8F1692635A4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTbMb2AAoJEJHd9Bbysc+aWaYH/iUqgWZnBLkCo7+qqBNauGMP BinmuBiAPJrl+BicicMNfsHedOGI21EMeAEVtnIbMSrrli/LCBOCTvOGZMzCtaHd 2NBvSR6oB46/5ppag7I9tHgUqreWpmfAwm2NbjCfkFAADQjg48JQjX4+pqEtmw8L +bCSaKHmxPB9KSg8X2g2ptvJsoVadS8y1yHE1YzisStu7KikNJPCrQuTdCzUXLuw 8P9f9hDquge8Ri29AOq7XRLppJheBEUzXnPly6SiMm5tiuZ8lQ/ftHpN28wj8sJC H5bwf/bXsS//gjWKPKncllTnroL+CndZtsLLpKfuLI9983wpcqLkwO56vEaEaJI= =FlKv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_ED590432-C20F-41BD-8D0A-F8F1692635A4-- From nobody Fri May 9 06:49:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275FE1A02A0 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 06:49:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4266ZsF4zMVy for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 06:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D2E1A0077 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 06:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1WilB8-0009Ep-Nc; Fri, 09 May 2014 09:49:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 09:49:34 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Franck Martin Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com> References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: klensin@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/F96AUflIWWsbPsy9z_kVdPu8LvQ Cc: Pete Resnick , Barry Leiba , ima@ietf.org Subject: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 13:49:46 -0000 (application ADs copied and subject changed --should have done the latter sooner) --On Friday, 09 May, 2014 12:15 +0000 Franck Martin wrote: > > On May 9, 2014, at 6:30 AM, John C Klensin > wrote: > >> One added observation for those who are inclined to make >> changes to domains from A-label form to U-label form after >> initial submission. Remember that a non-EAI-aware >> implementation is almost certain to use A-labels if it can >> handle a non-ASCII address at all (or the user is likely to >> slip non-ASCII domains past it by using A-labels). My >> recollection is that, when we tried to get the SPF, DKIM, and >> DMARC folks to pay attention to EAI addresses and IDNs, they >> weren't very interested. >> > My recollection is slightly different than yours. > > I got a spec changed in last call to avoid the group syntax in > From: header becomes a new weak standard. Franck, What I meant was that we informally approached the leadership of the relevant WGs about making sure that the EAI extensions, including non-ASCII headers and the like, were fully supported by SPF and DKIM (and, by extension although it is not IETF work, DMARC). We did not get any useful response. IIR, in at least one case, we were told that it would be future work, if ever. Changes affected in Last Call, rather than as an earlier part of WG process and design, are completely consistent with that history. More important in this context, I don't understand what "to avoid the group syntax in From: header becomes a new weak standard" means in practical terms and to internationalization of email addresses and headers. I also don't know what a "weak standard" is -- as far as I know, the IETF only has two categories of standards and neither of them is called "weak". So which spec did you get changed, to what, why, and what are the practical implications to EAI and/or SPF/DKIM deployment? FWIW, I've been asked in several contexts lately (and Joseph has too) why the EAI work is not deploying more quickly and what can be done to remove barriers and encourage deployment. It would be truly unfortunate to have to add to those reports a statement that the IETF has adopted standards for message authorization and spam mitigation and that parties deploying email now have a choice that makes the price of internationalization fewer weapons against spam. best, john From nobody Fri May 9 06:58:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 309791A02A0 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 06:58:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.772 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.772 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ho4ng1-yliZl for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 06:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [193.206.158.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373FE1A00BE for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 06:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: internal info suppressed Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 15:58:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@synx02.dir.garr.it To: John C Klensin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=garr.it; s=cyrus; t=1399643926; bh=UWC2neyTAszXnENsJofTu42Dn676JC8H2JApaRIeKG0=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=cuh54kFGNOvgI4SW/WIwhm0i/J3JZrS3udnOL5fAu4j6lPEfzcjaxsAxaxpte2gh4 skJMitt3x2cUA466+P5eKHvU7jIeKChFztYL0oTXmQ3/VGAufAAsYZOcwcJqNtS2X5 s+OK5KBQHmICTu2epvYMlfgEdPLktjZrgPGQpbW8= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/LIr2MjzKYypBbAeWo-zkcmuMFeU Cc: Barry Leiba , Pete Resnick , ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 13:58:55 -0000 On Fri, 9 May 2014, John C Klensin wrote: > FWIW, I've been asked in several contexts lately (and Joseph has > too) why the EAI work is not deploying more quickly and what can > be done to remove barriers and encourage deployment. It would > be truly unfortunate to have to add to those reports a statement > that the IETF has adopted standards for message authorization > and spam mitigation and that parties deploying email now have a > choice that makes the price of internationalization fewer > weapons against spam. ... it was time ago when the IETF "adopted" (or shall we say "nearly adopted", or "decided to publish anyhow to avoid more damage") standards like SPF and DKIM... and at that time we did not consider EAI in the already complex (and not fully satisfactory) scenarios that SFP and DKIM were designing. If we also considered at that time EAI implications, we should have had even more reasons not (I said NOT) to go with SPF and DKIM... too late, the dogs are out :-( Maybe it is time to consider an informational report about the status of SPF and DKIM (and similar) techniques deplyoment, and their pro/cons in the global messaging scenario... and to take after that some decisions, too. a bit "off topic", but John gave the occasion to mention this. all the best! > > best, > john > > _______________________________________________ > IMA mailing list > IMA@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca From nobody Fri May 9 08:31:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3331A0010 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 08:31:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.618 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id afrCENhZIBhA for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 08:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esv4-mav05.corp.linkedin.com (esv4-mav05.corp.linkedin.com [69.28.149.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B4C1A0016 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 08:31:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linkedin.com; i=@linkedin.com; q=dns/txt; s=proddkim1024; t=1399649478; x=1431185478; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=MgwyiZVtwpKDXjqev0lz/KFjdb1eGUdQCeb09pKKnBg=; b=Ih6Z1rd6HFsE35Mr4VHMslcplXgxn7oTT+kDQGTA5IiZlgwPQ4DRBVuU sDjwtEYR2vHjsZM+9Aqs66reBFcFNngzXiPpJ1XrS2lr/va+xJTbSlRwp mv8+Edw9skfucIdQt1TXXvpD7Qc/Uw/XFtAefJIoZ4LBLhQX61KqRLYN5 4=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1018,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="117928285" Received: from ESV4-MBX03.linkedin.biz ([fe80::14ba:eaea:c913:fa88]) by esv4-cas02.linkedin.biz ([172.18.46.142]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 9 May 2014 08:31:16 -0700 From: Franck Martin To: John C Klensin Thread-Topic: [SUSPECTED-SPAM] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) Thread-Index: AQHPa42IksORqa+HLUi9jur5pc1NRps4YFRp Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 15:31:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/uo3WkHTt1GAUsMz9Q_Kp0PhYG54 Cc: Pete Resnick , Barry Leiba , "ima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [EAI] [SUSPECTED-SPAM] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 15:31:25 -0000 I'm talking about RFC6854. It seems the industry is moving towards domain reputation, so any document = that removes the need for a domain identifier is, I think, a step in the wr= ong direction. On the from header, it is about one of the rare element exposed to the end = user. While you cannot teach all users to recognize phish and be successful= , it is not a reason to remove the identifiers for the users that can. I'm sometimes surprised very few people check that the domain in the From e= xists... We have started to rely so much on fuzzy logic, rather than hard t= est, to block spam/malware. The applicability statement in RFC6854 limit the scope, to say, if there is= nothing else you can do, it may be ok while we transition. For SPF/DKIM/DMARC they rely on the domain name, so conversion from UTF8 to= puny code and back is possible, so it is just a question of implementation= , more than standard. The local part is irrelevant for these protocols. Am = I missing something here? If an ASCII implementation see a domain name in UTF8, it may not be able to= convert it to puny code, for lack of library implementation, and may decid= e to reject the message as a whole. This is a risk to face. The fix will de= pend on where is the pain. It may not be pleasant. We are not used to run t= he latest mail software as we are for web software. I suspect there will be no issue when email is not forwarded, when it is fo= rwarded then there will be breakage that will need to be resolved. >From my poor understanding of all these RFC, this resolution may be left to= the end user, sometimes with bounce messages which UI developers think the= y are not easy to the recipient of such message (we should do a better expe= rience here, few ideas but for later). Overall, when I ask for EAI support, nobody is able to figure out how it wi= ll work exactly for the end users. So everyone I speak to is waiting for an= implementation. I think you may need to do a case scenario document with screenshots, and m= ay be an interop event. ;) Printed on recycled paper! > On May 9, 2014, at 9:49, "John C Klensin" wrote: >=20 > (application ADs copied and subject changed --should have done > the latter sooner) >=20 > --On Friday, 09 May, 2014 12:15 +0000 Franck Martin > wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> On May 9, 2014, at 6:30 AM, John C Klensin >> wrote: >>=20 >>> One added observation for those who are inclined to make >>> changes to domains from A-label form to U-label form after >>> initial submission. Remember that a non-EAI-aware >>> implementation is almost certain to use A-labels if it can >>> handle a non-ASCII address at all (or the user is likely to >>> slip non-ASCII domains past it by using A-labels). My >>> recollection is that, when we tried to get the SPF, DKIM, and >>> DMARC folks to pay attention to EAI addresses and IDNs, they >>> weren't very interested. >> My recollection is slightly different than yours.=20 >>=20 >> I got a spec changed in last call to avoid the group syntax in >> From: header becomes a new weak standard. >=20 > Franck, >=20 > What I meant was that we informally approached the leadership of > the relevant WGs about making sure that the EAI extensions, > including non-ASCII headers and the like, were fully supported > by SPF and DKIM (and, by extension although it is not IETF work, > DMARC). We did not get any useful response. IIR, in at least > one case, we were told that it would be future work, if ever. >=20 > Changes affected in Last Call, rather than as an earlier part of > WG process and design, are completely consistent with that > history. >=20 > More important in this context, I don't understand what "to > avoid the group syntax in From: header becomes a new weak > standard" means in practical terms and to internationalization > of email addresses and headers. I also don't know what a "weak > standard" is -- as far as I know, the IETF only has two > categories of standards and neither of them is called "weak". >=20 > So which spec did you get changed, to what, why, and what are > the practical implications to EAI and/or SPF/DKIM deployment? >=20 > FWIW, I've been asked in several contexts lately (and Joseph has > too) why the EAI work is not deploying more quickly and what can > be done to remove barriers and encourage deployment. It would > be truly unfortunate to have to add to those reports a statement > that the IETF has adopted standards for message authorization > and spam mitigation and that parties deploying email now have a > choice that makes the price of internationalization fewer > weapons against spam. >=20 > best, > john >=20 From nobody Fri May 9 09:10:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F961A007A for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MaAM5Xtl3Vs2 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:10:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x234.google.com (mail-qg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FAF61A0021 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id a108so4783211qge.11 for ; Fri, 09 May 2014 09:10:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yViyn4r/KQd4ZA8hwUoVb/0EBI3FtIpJquEg4qXs0h8=; b=eWuiFbjkSzmBHXBnyzBb4Kf2uENiOcdZtvtde8L1UEN2En5w+fuHWRyggCHeEAn7A9 eXLBK6XY2Rerif7X590L4IlOyPfDexzGXkezCTqXosFT7Qi95oTQew+nu41ksVfxzX48 IBVNCLbnFPgyoQC6Ti7aoFVCSdGE6bit9ih9FH4J0OmZsIq4g8tZL16yt5qYzBR8BkCC cCooFoylCuXkGntfs3RvOK04ReIl7NLcFdaZXADBibWv8FVkxDuP7SFQlhgUE7S9Klzd wXlZ1VnRUKmpx+z00u+PBU8MTLt4B08NyOj/CAySrhUutdT4Z08dh3pVXTS6im4L2UrZ iS0w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.221.194 with SMTP id id2mr15957108qcb.5.1399651815992; Fri, 09 May 2014 09:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.137.10 with HTTP; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:10:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com> Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 12:10:15 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: j7RXr9BxNi1bu9KBKASZ4hl4Lf0 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Claudio Allocchio Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/rxydU4CD1J8rXoHDMEfwzVGFoO4 Cc: Pete Resnick , "ima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 16:10:32 -0000 > ... it was time ago when the IETF "adopted" (or shall we say "nearly > adopted", or "decided to publish anyhow to avoid more damage") standards > like SPF and DKIM... and at that time we did not consider EAI in the already > complex (and not fully satisfactory) scenarios that SFP and DKIM were > designing. If we also considered at that time EAI implications, we should > have had even more reasons not (I said NOT) to go with SPF and DKIM... too > late, the dogs are out :-( This is simply not true with DKIM. The DKIM working group *did* discuss EAI, and decided two things: 1. We didn't see issues that caused EAI to interfere with DKIM, nor the other way 'round. 2. We decided that we were OK, and that the EAI WG should have a second look and document issues there, as their documents were significantly behind the DKIM ones. The EAI group lost a lot of its energy and probably didn't really look at DKIM, but I think that's OK: I remain convinced that EAI and DKIM do not affect each other (apart from the documented signature breakage if things are "downgraded"). I don't think SPF has any relation to EAI either. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the point in Franck's message, but one thing I get out of it is that Franck thinks that something about the RFC822 From header affects SPF and DKIM. It does not. There is nothing in either of those specs that has anything to do with the From header other than its being mandatory that "From" be included in the "h=" tag in DKIM. It's true that DMARC makes use of the From header, and that there *are* effects for DMARC. That's OK: DMARC is coming along later, and it's the responsibility of the DMARC spec to both address and document these issues. Barry From nobody Fri May 9 09:17:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855841A0043 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:17:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.772 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.772 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id STVB-T2whGjS for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [193.206.158.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C72E1A0009 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: internal info suppressed Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 18:17:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@synx02.dir.garr.it To: Barry Leiba In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=garr.it; s=cyrus; t=1399652224; bh=DMbY2tb3A6AMJjMYLeVFgX1qKnivS32OUu+FW8c+Gnc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=nRiBRaPbpJ3F6+4VnZsQJh6Bz3zHB7wpLu+12X/BAXdSWT7gcXVqQNx4mSjALO4Yk KY+j1MsVfy0dm4YmnMRHWLpYcpsfoerRNgsbPwZM/1UokQQo0rUVb2YVGARug+BtYX PWjHoLCaX8Jv6sQtu7qb4aEQW4nhlJWzbG0lGnkc= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/YovLAmRD3L27CTqjg8OJ6auod6E Cc: Pete Resnick , "ima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 16:17:14 -0000 On Fri, 9 May 2014, Barry Leiba wrote: >> ... it was time ago when the IETF "adopted" (or shall we say "nearly >> adopted", or "decided to publish anyhow to avoid more damage") standards >> like SPF and DKIM... and at that time we did not consider EAI in the already >> complex (and not fully satisfactory) scenarios that SFP and DKIM were >> designing. If we also considered at that time EAI implications, we should >> have had even more reasons not (I said NOT) to go with SPF and DKIM... too >> late, the dogs are out :-( > > This is simply not true with DKIM. The DKIM working group *did* > discuss EAI, and decided two things: > > 1. We didn't see issues that caused EAI to interfere with DKIM, nor > the other way 'round. > > 2. We decided that we were OK, and that the EAI WG should have a > second look and document issues there, as their documents were > significantly behind the DKIM ones. > > The EAI group lost a lot of its energy and probably didn't really look > at DKIM, but I think that's OK: I remain convinced that EAI and DKIM > do not affect each other (apart from the documented signature breakage > if things are "downgraded"). > > I don't think SPF has any relation to EAI either. I mean I do not recall we explicitly discussed EIA possible issues when deciding what to do with DKIM and SPF... we discussed other things, like users mobility, etc. > > I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the point in Franck's > message, but one thing I get out of it is that Franck thinks that > something about the RFC822 From header affects SPF and DKIM. It does > not. There is nothing in either of those specs that has anything to > do with the From header other than its being mandatory that "From" be > included in the "h=" tag in DKIM. > apart the downgrading case... no. > It's true that DMARC makes use of the From header, and that there > *are* effects for DMARC. That's OK: DMARC is coming along later, and > it's the responsibility of the DMARC spec to both address and document > these issues. > > Barry > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca From nobody Fri May 9 09:42:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B5A1A0021 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:42:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i88g4w94h8lQ for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945B01A0015 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s49Ge7qI019249 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 9 May 2014 09:40:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1399653614; bh=uBhW57LN2Lm+MsMcmSqogE+t/vKo5Pgse+2VJuomb3U=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=MELrBPP2sRiBW/QKqDrCL6imm33STxiGeqA8VLqDEsSdLmfGB2Y9BHHNMlJQ5sK61 TmpA+qAXAAjNYcpxoegOCuf+4D5zskCSjF7FgtpMyUgf3QJTRzEOeQwwpq6Sz5sTdR egunEV1bHVPCu8Ih1UTJtJp3CY9E0Q8jingv9QQg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1399653614; i=@resistor.net; bh=uBhW57LN2Lm+MsMcmSqogE+t/vKo5Pgse+2VJuomb3U=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=qZjmeupvBRWoKllWIrn2BVmsPeXLJb/uPpxMvEHVilnxvxsIbI0vyOOZVvtZGg78q 7fIE50o0GBQoNKsTDJLD5Ms74AvSnqNr2upf/wWK7SEnZEWWD3omH4l0lQI4C1z2BI IYTDS/LSwsz17AnMd6dnAInL9J3+CsO4Tyj2/prs= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140509091621.0c144830@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 09:34:43 -0700 To: Claudio Allocchio , John C Klensin From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/PNodRHuJXYqBxEqpbrELk1gegVs Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 16:42:14 -0000 Hi Claudio, {removed Apps ADs from Cc] At 06:58 09-05-2014, Claudio Allocchio wrote: >... it was time ago when the IETF "adopted" (or shall we say "nearly >adopted", or "decided to publish anyhow to avoid more damage") >standards like SPF and DKIM... and at that time we did not consider >EAI in the already complex (and not fully satisfactory) scenarios >that SFP and DKIM were designing. If we also considered at that time >EAI implications, we should have had even more reasons not (I said >NOT) to go with SPF and DKIM... too late, the dogs are out :-( There was some discussion about EAI in the SPFBIS working group (see threads at https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg02231.html and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01794.html). Things could have been better if people with an interest in EAI raised issues and discussed about those issues [1][2]. Regards, -sm 1. If I recall correct John Klensin raised some issues. 2. It's difficult to be the lonely participant arguing against a reluctant working group. From nobody Fri May 9 11:47:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433461A0321 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 11:47:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id attGMtLh-pok for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 11:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F301A0305 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 11:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1WippO-0009m9-ST; Fri, 09 May 2014 14:47:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 14:47:26 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Claudio Allocchio Message-ID: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: klensin@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/QSU_-3LcUPksrWPeLXLo6_i5HtA Cc: Barry Leiba , Pete Resnick , ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 18:47:49 -0000 --On Friday, 09 May, 2014 15:58 +0200 Claudio Allocchio wrote: >... > Maybe it is time to consider an informational report about the > status of SPF and DKIM (and similar) techniques deplyoment, > and their pro/cons in the global messaging scenario... and to > take after that some decisions, too. Speaking personally and with my "former co-chair" hat very much off, I would favor such an effort, especially if it took a specific look at relationships to EAI itself, message submission issues, post-delivery mail access (e.g., POP, IMAP, and various webmail flavors) and so on in both legacy and EAI contexts. If such an effort carefully examined the standards involved and concluded that, as Barry suggests, there are no conflicts, having that written down would help to eliminate a lot of misunderstandings and grumbling. By contrast, if that were not the case and the IETF were going to approve standards or promote external work that (accidentally or with observations about "collateral damage") impedes the deployment of either either long-deployed practices or other work approved or promoted by the IETF, the fact that has been done and the reasons for it should at least be publicly documented with IETF consensus about the reasons. Barry and Pete, partially for the reasons below, I'd see this more as an ad hoc committee effort, possibly including some appointed experts, and responsible to either you or the IAB i18n Program. As a further observation about Barry's remarks on the subject, there may also be a communication problem within the IETF. Barry wrote: > 2. We (DKIM) decided that we were OK, and that the EAI WG > should have a second look and document issues there Putting my "former chair" hat back on, I don't know when that occurred, but I don't recall getting such a request during my term as EAI Co-Chair. Had I gotten it, I would have pointed out that EAI almost certainly did not have the expertise needed to do that evaluation and "document issues". Noting the presumed reasons that may have resulted in the assignment of DKIM to the security area, even without the issues that Barry politely refers to as "running out of energy", the amount of expertise in EAI, as a WG even at its peak, for evaluation of the effects of a system that is dependent on the DNS, the interactions between the DNS and various email systems and protocols, and the workings of digital signatures was very small to non-existent. To take as an example part of the issue that caused me to make the comment that started this thread, there were a few people who happened to understand, partially via history with IDNA and digital signatures, the importance of carefully-specified canonical forms and interpretation and checking rules anytime one is going to do a signature over something that is going to be emailed, and who happened to also participate in EAI. But getting the EAI WG to understand those issues to the point of being able to do an evaluation, or even to reach meaningful consensus on such an evaluation, would have been a terrible diversion -- many of the people on this list will remember that we had problems even getting the vast majority of this WG up to speed on the interactions between SMTP and the i18n issues. I vaguely recall (Joseph, Harald, XiaoDong, and others will need to check me on this) that there was even a brief discussion of the DKIM and SPF issues in EAI and the conclusion was that they were both out of scope and out of competence. So I suggest that we had either some miscommunication about expectations, a problem with capabilities, or both, that resulted in inadequate review. I believe the IESG would be well advised to figure out a way to avoid those sorts of disconnects in the future when work with the potential for interaction occurs in parallel, especially in different Areas. This isn't something that EAI can drive, both because there is no longer a WG and because the scope and required expertise are, as noted above, much broader. But participants in this work who either care about either the impacts from other efforts on EAI deployment or the broader issues should probably start making those positions known to the Apps Area generally. If other mechanisms and ways to raise concerns fail, appeals of decisions that could introduce further conflicts (at charter time as well as Last Call) may be appropriate to focus community attention on the issues. Further discussion of the general issues should probably be moved to Apps-Discuss (if that occurs, let me know and I'll temporarily resubscribe :-( ). john From nobody Fri May 9 12:19:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41C01A030B for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 12:19:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U2wQYO6PnNyW for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 12:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686111A00D4 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 12:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68E5EFA03CC; Fri, 9 May 2014 19:18:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399663134-6320-6320/11/6; Fri, 9 May 2014 19:18:54 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 21:18:54 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0aa8c813-af42-493d-9e9a-675eb4eea1da@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/TjVOlU5SWw5m-RiMQwJhvXnyV50 Subject: [EAI] 6531, rcpt to:.... orcpt=... X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 19:19:05 -0000 Hi, I don't see any mention of orcpt in 6531. The general idea is that the smtp client uses u-labels encoded with the usual xtext blah and the server treats it as an opaque string, is that right? Arnt From nobody Fri May 9 13:36:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671671A00C3 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 13:36:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nj-et8xFXi_J for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 13:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D3D51A00F1 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 13:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1ADFA03CB; Fri, 9 May 2014 20:35:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399667751-6320-6320/11/7; Fri, 9 May 2014 20:35:51 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 22:35:51 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <78f3c2fe-09c2-456b-bfda-9c8b89e75bed@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/G1gaMAaRN8JYRNN7Wn0uHQXRhJ8 Subject: [EAI] SMTPUTF8 interop X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 20:36:02 -0000 Hi, I put together an autoresponder for easier SMTPUTF8 testing,=20 j=C3=B8ran@bl=C3=A5b=C3=A6rsyltet=C3=B8y.gulbrandsen.priv.no. If you = send J=C3=B8ran mail you'll get=20 a reply. I have other interop testing blah; send me mail if you want something. Have a nice weekend. Arnt From nobody Fri May 9 19:58:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9781A017F for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 19:58:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.461 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wMZ1HBJHhEIU for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 19:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15201A0120 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 19:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7MA70GOHC001V4N@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 9 May 2014 19:53:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1399690401; bh=oFO0bE6uoOTtjXwJxKC2C4HbN5sgaSenj8Pyrwic2Vs=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=spXV+MTgm7mZ6yguyQUh3bwVVpXTnW4Yn120ROlHPnTh7Lv9TuMJ0GIgQl2Yc9GOX hyl2wMItK8qISYl1z4DSyM7UUzJOAnH/JtX13nWQDwf/AdicWkPtwSjhRkcAGWdYhc QJPxRZwjRQ7sso7tizNbLhXRPHUwWgDWBaUqvG7U= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7JTJWRLO0000052@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 09 May 2014 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+ima@mrochek.com Message-id: <01P7MA6ZCRX6000052@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 14:55:12 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 09 May 2014 12:10:15 -0400" References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com> To: Barry Leiba Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/nAP6DyG98iGXygYi255JhNMQ17Y Cc: Pete Resnick , "ima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 02:58:02 -0000 > > ... it was time ago when the IETF "adopted" (or shall we say "nearly > > adopted", or "decided to publish anyhow to avoid more damage") standards > > like SPF and DKIM... and at that time we did not consider EAI in the already > > complex (and not fully satisfactory) scenarios that SFP and DKIM were > > designing. If we also considered at that time EAI implications, we should > > have had even more reasons not (I said NOT) to go with SPF and DKIM... too > > late, the dogs are out :-( > This is simply not true with DKIM. The DKIM working group *did* > discuss EAI, and decided two things: > 1. We didn't see issues that caused EAI to interfere with DKIM, nor > the other way 'round. Really? The ABNF in RFC 6376 is limited to 7bit, which makes accomodation of utf-8 domains in the d= field (and possibly other places) rather difficult. The only mention of accomodating utf-8 domains is this: INFORMATIVE IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: Although the "plain text" defined below (as "tag-value") only includes 7-bit characters, an implementation that wished to anticipate future standards would be advised not to preclude the use of UTF-8-encoded ([RFC3629]) text in tag=value lists. That's pretty weak tea IMO. And it's also insufficient. SPF, DKIM, and DMARC all depend on looking up various domains in the DNS. Since the DNS is limited to a-labels, there has to be a translation step - that domain in the d= field has to be converted from a U-label to an A-label. If there's a mention of that anywhere in the RFC I'm not seeing it. Now, I suppose you could say that all this is obvious and doesn't need to be spelled out. But not so fast: You could also design it where the A-label form has to appear in d= and any translation (from, say, the From: header field a la DMARC) has to happen before that. Those two approaches are clearly not compatible, and I can make a case for either of them being used. > 2. We decided that we were OK, and that the EAI WG should have a > second look and document issues there, as their documents were > significantly behind the DKIM ones. > The EAI group lost a lot of its energy and probably didn't really look > at DKIM, but I think that's OK: I remain convinced that EAI and DKIM > do not affect each other (apart from the documented signature breakage > if things are "downgraded"). > I don't think SPF has any relation to EAI either. See above. Additionally, forwarders needing to deal with SPF are compelled to use SRS or something similar. An EAI-encoded message with UTF-8 in the MAIL FROM has to be accomodated, and note that SRS may cause DSNs to travel via an alternate path which needs to support EAI for things to work. But AFAICT we have no way to talk about any of this, having no-bid any document describing the SRS solution space. > I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the point in Franck's > message, but one thing I get out of it is that Franck thinks that > something about the RFC822 From header affects SPF and DKIM. It does > not. There is nothing in either of those specs that has anything to > do with the From header other than its being mandatory that "From" be > included in the "h=" tag in DKIM. > It's true that DMARC makes use of the From header, and that there > *are* effects for DMARC. That's OK: DMARC is coming along later, and > it's the responsibility of the DMARC spec to both address and document > these issues. I confess I don't really get the point of Franck's message either, but I think it's a symptom of a larger problem: An overall erosion of concern for continued interoperability of the myriad components that make up the present-day email service. Ned From nobody Fri May 9 20:28:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C711A011A for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 20:28:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.678 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nJUDdh4X-djz for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 20:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x234.google.com (mail-qa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F881A0107 for ; Fri, 9 May 2014 20:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id cm18so5002515qab.11 for ; Fri, 09 May 2014 20:28:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kS62uwtachl+Owef7o4N2PFm/RRONTomvoKeGVNj/D0=; b=SMxijIN93F92L6ib/D6BZbOoArgl9AxoTgbyuQNNS/oxMmNjZnt+B5mbF5sFImCeLA 27GxBKoN4aA2B11n2w8vDurB9DIey3BxuTp2DU3m2dW1l5ldtVa5eZE+m8sLgYFzJJZK 00uEO1NWsVLfewqJkTwT5j7bh94ophv+1Tu9f8E5pPQcSEG/tGqMTutF7YabL9WqDKGd xg1jOETh59DynS0d9Q5qRsv4q9ScsrnyLeVwG9Xlg3Z30OT0cDhZnNF6ibO6URvzf44D MaLV+dswQxTPG7PHh5tFcfnPg1I/TKKeVQKaHeGx5yZa1/gDVQeRdtqJOyHkcsan+R/G QFOA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.83.227 with SMTP id j90mr19194360qgd.42.1399692528607; Fri, 09 May 2014 20:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.137.10 with HTTP; Fri, 9 May 2014 20:28:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <01P7MA6ZCRX6000052@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com> <01P7MA6ZCRX6000052@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 23:28:48 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ycJBQMZu_Gbo0r_AjdjfClsyoqU Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Ned Freed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/XnKazEGAhT7N0O1SImhWs0dUoTs Cc: Pete Resnick , "ima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 03:28:55 -0000 > Really? The ABNF in RFC 6376 is limited to 7bit, which makes accomodation of > utf-8 domains in the d= field (and possibly other places) rather difficult. The > only mention of accomodating utf-8 domains is this: > > INFORMATIVE IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: Although the "plain text" defined > below (as "tag-value") only includes 7-bit characters, an > implementation that wished to anticipate future standards would be > advised not to preclude the use of UTF-8-encoded ([RFC3629]) text > in tag=value lists. > > That's pretty weak tea IMO. > > And it's also insufficient. SPF, DKIM, and DMARC all depend on looking up > various domains in the DNS. Since the DNS is limited to a-labels, there has to > be a translation step - that domain in the d= field has to be converted from a > U-label to an A-label. If there's a mention of that anywhere in the RFC I'm not > seeing it. RFC 6376, Section 3.5: d= The SDID claiming responsibility for an introduction of a message into the mail stream (plain-text; REQUIRED). Hence, the SDID value is used to form the query for the public key. The SDID MUST correspond to a valid DNS name under which the DKIM key record is published. The conventions and semantics used by a Signer to create and use a specific SDID are outside the scope of this specification, as is any use of those conventions and semantics. When presented with a signature that does not meet these requirements, Verifiers MUST consider the signature invalid. Internationalized domain names MUST be encoded as A-labels, as described in Section 2.3 of [RFC5890]. That last sentence is the operative bit. Barry From nobody Sat May 10 11:26:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB36A1A0271 for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 11:26:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.618 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WU4Xt-wXBVSb for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 11:26:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esv4-mav04.corp.linkedin.com (esv4-mav04.corp.linkedin.com [69.28.149.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9D21A009A for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 11:26:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linkedin.com; i=@linkedin.com; q=dns/txt; s=proddkim1024; t=1399746374; x=1431282374; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=2VDxHaOmCwaTekGAe+JiYC5/XY1ub1TJaSWxsF1WNS8=; b=McTAQCcqk69erQS2IH2pofW1W/5pcsG9SbE/y51eMsHrCloMXGTusE7X lqSWsantK2WhqBZelauqvEt/s+RWcC4Sw5rVEBfwA4LqD+LK7NEZJQHsj VEMhfQi6Ln32RMyaWNLN7zzGibkMbDz6Wfq86nWgWdW09OB+Mucs7c4ft g=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1025,1389772800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="120692604" Received: from ESV4-MBX03.linkedin.biz ([fe80::14ba:eaea:c913:fa88]) by esv4-cas01.linkedin.biz ([172.18.46.140]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Sat, 10 May 2014 11:26:13 -0700 From: Franck Martin To: Barry Leiba Thread-Topic: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) Thread-Index: AQHPa6EypzxvD/LnVEyy2Bx5rg1yaJs5IBOCgAB97ACAAPq7AA== Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 18:26:13 +0000 Message-ID: <70D15A6E-D8BB-406A-87A5-699BAB5ED102@linkedin.com> References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com> <01P7MA6ZCRX6000052@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.18.46.252] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4DACB5EE-444F-4E9A-94F0-F15E74ED7901"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/cIZooDcl_uWeZ_P0FL4902myyaA Cc: Pete Resnick , Ned Freed , "ima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 18:26:21 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4DACB5EE-444F-4E9A-94F0-F15E74ED7901 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I have 2 points, for clarification, ;) 1) this has nothing to do with SPF, DKIM, DMARC. RFC6854 states this is = fine to receive an email with an anonymous author. From: =93anonymous=94; or worst: From: =93Paypal security=94; With no email address or domain, to verify who is really the author (yes = it can be forged, but also it can be DKIM signed) In other words, it does not matter who is the author of the email.=20 I don=92t think we want to go this path, just for security reasons.=20 The applicability statement, limits the use of this syntax, I would have = preferred this RFC does not even exists. This is weakening the security = of email not increasing it. 2) as a few pointed here, for SPF, DKIM, and even DMARC. The domain part = of an email address can easily be converted to A-label, and this is what = the MTA has to do before passing it to SPF or DKIM, or DMARC. I think = these protocols will be constrained to A-labels and this is fine. --Apple-Mail=_4DACB5EE-444F-4E9A-94F0-F15E74ED7901 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTbm9EAAoJEJHd9Bbysc+amocH/08a5wnJvEFAJxLWIhHP3vap ccApyoLBKrdXxXG3fkpAoNpuUWK2c3xS2PJpVyR4t66X7jszIPhJRNAV+JvAuMgm PXVGMUZQ7BUysaeWmIG1MjjcCX00ZzkHwXBjqcGx7bvovuYV0vVD+UNBFoHarPyy qzvMkAPL9TAuGn20PmkSd/ZaguSo5BxVlr/q134oWR/MyBL1peJhXdeOzH2nFgnC V8rBR39sD2yk18tg5Fc68LZIJ9f2N7gc8aTUs1jK3niputC3GAK63W2DnE2Wlm3F yBYFFZEmVCtyMEiavlK6vdiUPgYPXP+5nALUqBimCyVwFovyT8iKhej6yjF3wns= =V/AD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4DACB5EE-444F-4E9A-94F0-F15E74ED7901-- From nobody Sat May 10 11:26:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681C71A009A for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 11:26:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.618 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vvW9knBsXs5r for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 11:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esv4-mav05.corp.linkedin.com (esv4-mav05.corp.linkedin.com [69.28.149.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3779B1A0237 for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 11:26:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linkedin.com; i=@linkedin.com; q=dns/txt; s=proddkim1024; t=1399746375; x=1431282375; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=c78/CJmocr1RDoEdAVNGrRL9A3ctpsQL7r79yZDg3rE=; b=Uhje5WIYpfm2WCrPgYL/ueZ/rrW+BuWRv+K0oG/ICJr1+4wujRKEndHr A75bVTxckLq8bHjIf/O4I7kbgKJW/hgdfD4sIoMku2zmp0yLFa2Fp6GkV W3+xahpGMqFiTGbrsRVVfiXGxkkw0/Z9yHhnSnF3rkxYooEKRCUOizqan 4=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1025,1389772800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="118047213" Received: from ESV4-MBX03.linkedin.biz ([fe80::14ba:eaea:c913:fa88]) by esv4-cas02.linkedin.biz ([172.18.46.142]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Sat, 10 May 2014 11:26:14 -0700 From: Franck Martin To: Barry Leiba Thread-Topic: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) Thread-Index: AQHPa6EypzxvD/LnVEyy2Bx5rg1yaJs5IBOCgAB97ACAAPq8gA== Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 18:26:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com> <01P7MA6ZCRX6000052@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.18.46.252] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3E95CF50-013B-4C82-8AFA-1586E1B12DFB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/120J4cL-Dtq9tuu9lYgmDlAXFOU Cc: Pete Resnick , Ned Freed , "ima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 18:26:21 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3E95CF50-013B-4C82-8AFA-1586E1B12DFB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I have 2 points, for clarification, ;) 1) this has nothing to do with SPF, DKIM, DMARC. RFC6854 states this is = fine to receive an email with an anonymous author. From: =93anonymous=94; or worst: From: =93Paypal security=94; With no email address or domain, to verify who is really the author (yes = it can be forged, but also it can be DKIM signed) In other words, it does not matter who is the author of the email.=20 I don=92t think we want to go this path, just for security reasons.=20 The applicability statement, limits the use of this syntax, I would have = preferred this RFC does not even exists. This is weakening the security = of email not increasing it. 2) as a few pointed here, for SPF, DKIM, and even DMARC. The domain part = of an email address can easily be converted to A-label, and this is what = the MTA has to do before passing it to SPF or DKIM, or DMARC. I think = these protocols will be constrained to A-labels and this is fine. --Apple-Mail=_3E95CF50-013B-4C82-8AFA-1586E1B12DFB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTbm9FAAoJEJHd9Bbysc+a6N4IAI/8sCoYKvQHbqzIsYrmVm+v LJluXSLN1ApaqBaBB9mBg/3vdlWy/jBPhMqaN9EKPOyuyhF8ba5kyvQ79JCv1Gqm u9IruUj8+DMN6C9gkwTc+jw1KX0iYxR9MTi06MxYT9JOG3+augeOaH1iC4P6avYA V55WOTh5XQILVixugSUZufrKDT0/5ms0pIVP3TKt9SIk6L3ftCGsI+jnmNISe8uT /1KvgmDvQ7OfgXKGzSfrqNyiht8SGfPMeWfIUtM3ZMtxJSxPSxI7ZRRL+p9oImUZ ng4ZomGmUrPLLCTcUozDbeGEDERJ7d2HoEOIfO0Oq/oMncjzd4mrAuAGW2lQBCg= =b04B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_3E95CF50-013B-4C82-8AFA-1586E1B12DFB-- From nobody Sat May 10 12:32:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866441A00B4 for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 12:31:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.053 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.053 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sJv6sB2wq9wp for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 12:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9201A0078 for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 12:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7N8VS0ISG001T59@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Sat, 10 May 2014 12:26:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1399750011; bh=qTvQWOf0X3PH7psDN6+BDD09VRn99ELx9uJGslRuU9Y=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=LsPUvIMZVpni5cwk4S5Fuoc2DgiNCgCw7MUa0Wg3XMJWMF/M7bkIpNeFETFtYjPO3 2Aw25URLh9h/7jU130jWmhkkjCqbWEdEZ8CQ4xpPmotKqgv6Dm8e/+GwS3cnby3KFd 3sx7PmZWTVH/VtG5RILnCT52KKk/2i+8Mr1GIkzw= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7JTJWRLO0000052@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Sat, 10 May 2014 12:26:47 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+ima@mrochek.com Message-id: <01P7N8VQDEWI000052@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 09 May 2014 23:28:48 -0400" References: <32DCCFCAFCDE1995F8C3DFD6@JCK-EEE10> <586bf944-2e24-47df-86ab-60af963672be@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <26954193-B951-488A-935A-CD24D09BDDB1@linkedin.com> <01P7MA6ZCRX6000052@mauve.mrochek.com> To: Barry Leiba Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/wRc66ETrTtLU1-SCt-r90O3eE4Y Cc: Pete Resnick , Ned Freed , "ima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [EAI] SPF, DKIM, etc., and EAI (was: Re: IDN domains and EAI) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 19:31:59 -0000 > > Really? The ABNF in RFC 6376 is limited to 7bit, which makes accomodation of > > utf-8 domains in the d= field (and possibly other places) rather difficult. The > > only mention of accomodating utf-8 domains is this: > > > > INFORMATIVE IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: Although the "plain text" defined > > below (as "tag-value") only includes 7-bit characters, an > > implementation that wished to anticipate future standards would be > > advised not to preclude the use of UTF-8-encoded ([RFC3629]) text > > in tag=value lists. > > > > That's pretty weak tea IMO. > > > > And it's also insufficient. SPF, DKIM, and DMARC all depend on looking up > > various domains in the DNS. Since the DNS is limited to a-labels, there has to > > be a translation step - that domain in the d= field has to be converted from a > > U-label to an A-label. If there's a mention of that anywhere in the RFC I'm not > > seeing it. > RFC 6376, Section 3.5: > d= The SDID claiming responsibility for an introduction of a message > into the mail stream (plain-text; REQUIRED). Hence, the SDID > value is used to form the query for the public key. The SDID MUST > correspond to a valid DNS name under which the DKIM key record is > published. The conventions and semantics used by a Signer to > create and use a specific SDID are outside the scope of this > specification, as is any use of those conventions and semantics. > When presented with a signature that does not meet these > requirements, Verifiers MUST consider the signature invalid. > Internationalized domain names MUST be encoded as A-labels, as > described in Section 2.3 of [RFC5890]. > That last sentence is the operative bit. Missed that, sorry. That eliminates the ambiguity at least. But there's still a potential issue; it's just pushed off to other specifications. Requiring an A-label in the d= field means anything comparing a domain name against the field has to convert to A-label form. And that has to be specified each and every time. The DMARC specification actually discusses this and says when and how to do it, using the term "conversion". I think it's OK in this regard. However, while RFC 7208 (SPF) mentions this, the language used is ambiguous. It says: 4.3. Initial Processing If the is malformed (e.g., label longer than 63 characters, zero-length label not at the end, etc.) or is not a multi-label domain name, or if the DNS lookup returns "Name Error" (RCODE 3, also known as "NXDOMAIN" [RFC2308]), check_host() immediately returns the result "none". DNS RCODEs are defined in [RFC1035]. Properly formed domains are fully qualified domains as defined in [RFC1983]. That is, in the DNS they are implicitly qualified relative to the root (see Section 3.1 of [RFC1034]). Internationalized domain names MUST be encoded as A-labels, as described in Section 2.3 of [RFC5890]. Note the last sentence. Does that mean "convert any U-labels to A-labels" or does it mean "reject anything that isn't already encoded in A-label form". Normally I'd say the former, but given that this appears in a paragraph talking about stuff that's not allowed. It's also the language other specifications use for restrictions; different language is used when calling for a conversion. The good news is this can be handed as an erratum. Ned From nobody Sun May 11 10:14:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0675C1A0261 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:08:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nqmhWz3Sa0z6 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8C11A0259 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7OI64KT40001VTL@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:03:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1399827795; bh=dM9BLY/k6o5pjhAGzh2gURiHtphjyjpMJtMSA9eCcjU=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=XiSe55Mz8OWp4Tj6/PcNLUJMfF3ioGG04xc13YY/JQ29KdAhu3N2vAcM104k40wGy 1qwebkg40K0Nr6BmCV8DZlcrK/sSRn3BeHY3PjutVKmlq1t+4hgOMsGW4Iprh8suX9 grIKrYBnb9cPszPTb4dcicYY+92xO9+8hKLDjPCo= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1; Format=flowed Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7JTJWRLO0000052@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Sun, 11 May 2014 10:03:13 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+ima@mrochek.com Message-id: <01P7OI631LTS000052@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 10:01:48 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 09 May 2014 21:18:54 +0200" <0aa8c813-af42-493d-9e9a-675eb4eea1da@gulbrandsen.priv.no> References: <0aa8c813-af42-493d-9e9a-675eb4eea1da@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/r0AYQvHOJhXq93eK0OY2h4VW8Nk Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] 6531, rcpt to:.... orcpt=... X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 17:08:26 -0000 > Hi, > I don't see any mention of orcpt in 6531. The general idea is that the smtp > client uses u-labels encoded with the usual xtext blah and the server > treats it as an opaque string, is that right? This is discussed in section 3 of RFC 6533. And it isn't that simple: The definition of the new utf-8 address complicates things considerably. This is one of the most tedious parts of EAI for me to implement. FWIW. Ned From nobody Mon May 12 06:57:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DFA31A0717 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 06:57:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0xHqlMSOum4X for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 06:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0C41A06FA for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 06:57:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F2DFA0078; Mon, 12 May 2014 13:57:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399903047-6320-6320/11/23; Mon, 12 May 2014 13:57:27 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: Ned Freed Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:57:26 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <8e5e2f2d-558f-4f89-a69f-685442a08349@gulbrandsen.priv.no> In-Reply-To: <01P7OI631LTS000052@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <0aa8c813-af42-493d-9e9a-675eb4eea1da@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <01P7OI631LTS000052@mauve.mrochek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/fYf8wSXsSn2HXvxNcxVjqQF_bbM Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] 6531, rcpt to:.... orcpt=... X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 13:57:37 -0000 On Sunday, May 11, 2014 7:01:48 PM CEST, Ned Freed wrote: > This is discussed in section 3 of RFC 6533. And it isn't that simple: The > definition of the new utf-8 address complicates things considerably. Yes, so I see. The second paragraph of section 3 is the one I was surprised not to see in 6531. Arnt From nobody Mon May 12 07:15:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE681A0706 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 07:15:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KhIbn5RmpG4e for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 07:15:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C4A1A06FA for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 07:15:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E68FA0078; Mon, 12 May 2014 14:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399904104-6320-6320/11/24; Mon, 12 May 2014 14:15:04 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 16:15:03 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <24f1ce09-5f86-4cb4-9d4f-04ad5724b87e@gulbrandsen.priv.no> In-Reply-To: <8e5e2f2d-558f-4f89-a69f-685442a08349@gulbrandsen.priv.no> References: <0aa8c813-af42-493d-9e9a-675eb4eea1da@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <01P7OI631LTS000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <8e5e2f2d-558f-4f89-a69f-685442a08349@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/9-McAIM5xNl8jRBCQ_KD63bm8ew Subject: Re: [EAI] 6531, rcpt to:.... orcpt=... X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:15:14 -0000 6533 doesn't quite have the air of elegant simplicity that gilds 6531 and 6854. When sending data to a SMTPUTF8-capable server, native UTF-8 characters SHOULD be used instead of the EmbeddedUnicodeChar syntax described below. When sending data to an SMTP server that does not advertise SMTPUTF8, then the EmbeddedUnicodeChar syntax MUST be used instead of UTF-8. And what about DSN generators that have no idea about any of that? Such as ones that are only permitted to write to a spool, not to open SMTP connections anywhere? Suggestions, anyone? Arnt From nobody Mon May 12 07:23:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42541A072B for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 07:23:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y57rVMF8AVM1 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 07:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717031A072A for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 07:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20563FA0045; Mon, 12 May 2014 14:23:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1399904619-6320-6320/11/25; Mon, 12 May 2014 14:23:39 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 16:23:38 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <24f1ce09-5f86-4cb4-9d4f-04ad5724b87e@gulbrandsen.priv.no> References: <0aa8c813-af42-493d-9e9a-675eb4eea1da@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <01P7OI631LTS000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <8e5e2f2d-558f-4f89-a69f-685442a08349@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <24f1ce09-5f86-4cb4-9d4f-04ad5724b87e@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/4vWXp8CEwyr7Mh9vAlvXvhT5Hpc Subject: Re: [EAI] 6531, rcpt to:.... orcpt=... X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:23:48 -0000 I'm confused. Forget that. Sorry. Arnt From nobody Wed May 21 10:28:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F621A070A for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 10:28:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.951 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id blLkAI1xhPqL for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 10:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x230.google.com (mail-qc0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 737841A0676 for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 10:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id r5so3725077qcx.7 for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 10:28:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:from:to:subject:date:mime-version:content-type :importance; bh=42O2go0ri1cdTec26wdJ+9OX0JI9jR0EmvVYEqMKlSQ=; b=I8wvFMeb5BB4UgrSo7HiRChQdT+XmqWNuGfHzFu2w5BuUllcAg0uKZGaMwqPbTHut8 NIJlilReuYsM7Ms4qrlAiA2Qh3Ql8zUyJcaJGLjxSv8HBwq2mGy2ZU4BEfbrsdR7hZ4R D5O7atagXOJiHwXG/r37By8oRlT6ye6yNYv9uztTNH2LhkP9Ofg1rrYcMg4NQqPFUehi CVHM8s82ggSStqIxwL5B08wpM11Arsf6qr1RuOi7RU2asJxXanXEOV00TBuuBSQ/go1u bSYf9Bj9DxuIPDbmHT8VksCCM69b2vWjb3+vtJbm6Vi5hBhxhIlHKfSj9yX5jiwLzriC C3Gw== X-Received: by 10.224.40.76 with SMTP id j12mr6083183qae.90.1400693330138; Wed, 21 May 2014 10:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PeterPC (c-50-169-108-108.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [50.169.108.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q16sm1069189qga.42.2014.05.21.10.28.49 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 21 May 2014 10:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C22EE41F48542D2AEBDD14A62512E88@PeterPC> From: "Peter Occil" To: Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 13:28:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02C3_01CF74F8.95B0FF30" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140521-0, 05/21/2014), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/nCpsXJQllr3cJepaz61as5prtWM Subject: [EAI] RFC6857: Disposition notifications not affected X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 17:28:53 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02C3_01CF74F8.95B0FF30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have added the following issue to the wiki: "Another issue is that disposition notifications are not affected by = downgrading as currently specified, even though they can include = Original-Recipient and Final-Recipient header fields just like delivery = status notifications." --Peter ------=_NextPart_000_02C3_01CF74F8.95B0FF30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have added the following issue to the wiki:
 
"Another issue is that disposition notifications are not affected = by=20 downgrading as currently specified, even though they can include=20 Original-Recipient and Final-Recipient header fields just like delivery = status=20 notifications."
 
--Peter
------=_NextPart_000_02C3_01CF74F8.95B0FF30-- From nobody Fri May 23 04:40:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913CF1A0140 for ; Fri, 23 May 2014 04:40:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KYcvSBTL8Njf for ; Fri, 23 May 2014 04:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C31E11A015E for ; Fri, 23 May 2014 04:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB60F8C001; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:40:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1400845234-6320-6320/11/75; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:40:34 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 13:40:33 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.3.96-176-g713fcbb; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 13.10 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/ff2qByF5RHhmUf8cBKdROirPJP0 Subject: [EAI] EAI, IMAP, old messages X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 11:40:40 -0000 Hi, something I chanced upon. If an IMAP client enables UTF8=3DACCEPT, opens = a=20 mailbox and issues UID FETCH BODY for an old (ASCII) message with = subject=20 bl=C3=A5b=C3=A6rsyltet=C3=B8y, what happens? Its subject field as = received is likely=20 "Subject: =3D?...", and 6855 neither says that the server has to decode = the=20 2047 blob nor that the client has to. Naturally, the client is able to do the decoding, it has to be in order = to=20 work with unextended servers. And the server is able to decode too, it = has=20 to be in order to implement IMAP SEARCH. As it stands, I think both may or even should decode, which doesn't = please=20 me very much. It's not an important matter, but I do dislike issuing a uid fetch 100:120 body.peek[header.fields (subject)] and receiving some 2047 blobs and some utf8 for a purely extrinsic = reason.=20 So I'd be happier if the server were required to do the decoding. Arnt