From rfg@tristatelogic.com Sun Oct 5 21:25:04 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 C98411A1B20 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2014 21:25:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.454 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, 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 jmyCSGgdvdEi for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2014 21:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com [69.62.255.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEAF41A1AFE for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2014 21:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.tristatelogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999F23ADFA for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2014 21:25:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" To: ima@ietf.org Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:25:03 -0700 Message-ID: <21771.1412569503@server1.tristatelogic.com> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/8zCx5z402TgNpuXGf6x90Qx6Rnc Subject: [EAI] A simple question 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, 06 Oct 2014 04:37:33 -0000 Having just today skimmed... for the first time... RFC 6531, I have a rather basic question. It appears from my skimming that the first opportunity that either an SMTP client or an SMTP server gets, under these protocol revisions, to tell the other that it can support the new internationalized domain names, is when the server responds to a client-initiated HELO or EHLO command. Is that correct? If so, then I am wondering what sorts of encoding(s), if any, a client will be allowed to use with respect to the domain name that it may include within the HELO/EHLO command that it issues, i.e. before either side of the conversation has said anything definitive about what it can or can't support. Must such domain names be represented as Punycode? From nobody Sun Oct 5 22:56:21 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 DD96D1A1B3D for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2014 22:56:18 -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 Rh0am3rkuI-t for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2014 22:56:17 -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 82E6B1A1B3C for ; Sun, 5 Oct 2014 22:56:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D525FA00AD; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 05:56:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1412574972-20915-20914/12/350; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 05:56:12 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org, "Ronald F. Guilmette" Message-Id: <01b678d00ec1d3feff5d2b3c417cb11ce66330b9a3408aa5b0b8d3e64173e8d2.sha-256@android.antelope.email> References: <21771.1412569503@server1.tristatelogic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 05:56:12 +0000 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/gaDlZmsbKS35iDfu3chbe6eIGcw Subject: [EAI] A simple question 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, 06 Oct 2014 05:56:19 -0000 Yes, and yes. Arnt From nobody Mon Oct 6 06:49:29 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 872171A6F98 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 06:49:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.386 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] 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 p4432ydiex9P for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 06:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 138FD1A6F7D for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 06:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h8.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.35] helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Xb8fC-0001Af-RV; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:49:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:49:17 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , ima@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <21771.1412569503@server1.tristatelogic.com> References: <21771.1412569503@server1.tristatelogic.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: 198.252.137.35 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/HzwuewMQ-xFp8N9nXQFlVIkq-3o Subject: Re: [EAI] A simple question 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, 06 Oct 2014 13:49:28 -0000 --On Sunday, October 05, 2014 21:25 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" wrote: > Having just today skimmed... for the first time... RFC 6531, I > have a rather basic question. > > It appears from my skimming that the first opportunity that > either an SMTP client or an SMTP server gets, under these > protocol revisions, to tell the other that it can support the > new internationalized domain names, is when the server > responds to a client-initiated HELO or EHLO command. Is that > correct? Yes. This is normal for SMTP extensions. Indeed, there aren't a lot of other choices. See RFC 5321 and its predecessors if you are interested. > If so, then I am wondering what sorts of encoding(s), if any, > a client will be allowed to use with respect to the domain > name that it may include within the HELO/EHLO command that it > issues, i.e. before either side of the conversation has said > anything definitive about what it can or can't support. Must > such domain names be represented as Punycode? Yes. There is no plausible way for an SMTP extension (this one included) to extend the syntax of the EHLO command. As to HELO, if the client sends that, the EAI extensions just aren't going to happen so it is a non-issue. john From nobody Mon Oct 6 14:40:42 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 6B3D41A8A52 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:40:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.839 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.839 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] 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 wdaVQVD_ARWh for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:40:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com [69.62.255.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A1D1A6F3A for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.tristatelogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A583AE61 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:40:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" To: ima@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:40:38 -0700 Message-ID: <44458.1412631638@server1.tristatelogic.com> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/CVMIRGqyp2Np1L6bL9uHFf6UUeU Subject: Re: [EAI] A simple question 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, 06 Oct 2014 21:40:40 -0000 In message , John C Klensin wrote: >> If so, then I am wondering what sorts of encoding(s), if any, >> a client will be allowed to use with respect to the domain >> name that it may include within the HELO/EHLO command that it >> issues, i.e. before either side of the conversation has said >> anything definitive about what it can or can't support. Must >> such domain names be represented as Punycode? > >Yes. There is no plausible way for an SMTP extension (this one >included) to extend the syntax of the EHLO command. Thank you for that info. Unfortunately, I'm still wondering about that last question. If the client cannot (yet) know whether or not the server supports internationalized domain names, and if the client wishes to do the usual and expected thing, i.e. put its domain name into the EHLO, then how MUST that domain name be encoded, specifically in the case where the name of the client is an IDN? Punycode? From nobody Mon Oct 6 15:28:56 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 EDD691A8BB4 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:28:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.274 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.274 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=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] 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 38Js5d2dR03N for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ijs.si (mail.ijs.si [IPv6:2001:1470:ff80::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2155E1A6FDD for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amavis-proxy-ori.ijs.si (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3jBc0g1PWNzZQ for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 00:28:51 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ijs.si; h= user-agent:message-id:references:in-reply-to:organization :subject:subject:from:from:date:date:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:mime-version:received:received :received:received; s=jakla4; t=1412634526; x=1415226527; bh=yuj rb0D0ekxpG2OhtVfmvlnKoSJwqVGWOsI5Jnsgsxk=; b=e5mxAaWa21CGZVtsm/+ osKa6OYQ1f8ELiMOMZZCqPoUWKmhDlKcIS22k3mYHME4ex3KzcEyF/jMYQFsENw7 DD++M3gi4Vf/zctejPAQ7orkfO6HlsL/Xa2o0dEckpEhk03+a+RBHA0IO0X43Ktj vHYLYgLITrd7KQIGqdyGbImY= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ijs.si Received: from mail.ijs.si ([IPv6:::1]) by amavis-proxy-ori.ijs.si (mail.ijs.si [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10012) with ESMTP id DttbCWd1jPCs for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 00:28:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mildred.ijs.si (mailbox.ijs.si [IPv6:2001:1470:ff80::143:1]) by mail.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 00:28:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from neli.ijs.si (neli.ijs.si [IPv6:2001:1470:ff80:88:21c:c0ff:feb1:8c91]) by mildred.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3jBc0Z1923zyS for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 00:28:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sleepy.ijs.si ([2001:1470:ff80:e001::1:1]) by neli.ijs.si with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Tue, 07 Oct 2014 00:28:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 00:28:46 +0200 From: Mark Martinec To: ima@ietf.org Organization: Jozef Stefan Institute In-Reply-To: <44458.1412631638@server1.tristatelogic.com> References: <44458.1412631638@server1.tristatelogic.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: Mark.Martinec+ietf@ijs.si User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.3 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/4jbmI0tFUL8TSR4kesPSKOtXbEw Subject: Re: [EAI] A simple question 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, 06 Oct 2014 22:28:56 -0000 2014-10-06 23:40, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > In message , > John C Klensin wrote: > >>> If so, then I am wondering what sorts of encoding(s), if any, >>> a client will be allowed to use with respect to the domain >>> name that it may include within the HELO/EHLO command that it >>> issues, i.e. before either side of the conversation has said >>> anything definitive about what it can or can't support. Must >>> such domain names be represented as Punycode? >> >> Yes. There is no plausible way for an SMTP extension (this one >> included) to extend the syntax of the EHLO command. > > Thank you for that info. > > Unfortunately, I'm still wondering about that last question. > > If the client cannot (yet) know whether or not the server supports > internationalized domain names, and if the client wishes to do > the usual and expected thing, i.e. put its domain name into the > EHLO, then how MUST that domain name be encoded, specifically in > the case where the name of the client is an IDN? > > Punycode? Yes, as answered by Arnt. RFC 6531 is clear on this: 3.7.1. The Initial SMTP Exchange When an SMTP connection is opened, the SMTP server sends a "greeting" response consisting of the 220 reply-code and some information. The SMTP client then sends the EHLO command. Since the SMTP client cannot know whether the SMTP server supports SMTPUTF8 until after it receives the response to the EHLO, the SMTPUTF8-aware SMTP client MUST send only ASCII (LDH label or A-label [RFC5890]) domains in the EHLO command. If the SMTPUTF8-aware SMTP server provides domain names in the EHLO response, they MUST be in the form of LDH labels or A-labels. Btw, the proper name for this encoding is ACE, ASCII-compatible encoding. Punycode is just a name of an algorithm (RFC 3490). Before encoding the Unicode string must be normalized... Mark From nobody Mon Oct 6 15:48:33 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 0882D1A7009 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:48:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.872 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] 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 Z4jMvVcHKmAj for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:48:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27E161A889E for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:48:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h8.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.35] helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1XbH4m-0001rb-KZ; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:48:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:48:15 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Mark Martinec , ima@ietf.org Message-ID: <54D1B388FE16A3D4DA669A60@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: References: <44458.1412631638@server1.tristatelogic.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: 198.252.137.35 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/a4bywptReD3S93dFxq4yZjAKFpI Subject: Re: [EAI] A simple question 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, 06 Oct 2014 22:48:27 -0000 --On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 00:28 +0200 Mark Martinec wrote: > 2014-10-06 23:40, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> In message , >> John C Klensin wrote: >> >>>> If so, then I am wondering what sorts of encoding(s), if >>>> any, a client will be allowed to use with respect to the >>>> domain name that it may include within the HELO/EHLO >>>> command that it issues, i.e. before either side of the >>>> conversation has said anything definitive about what it can >>>> or can't support. Must such domain names be represented as >>>> Punycode? >>> >>> Yes. There is no plausible way for an SMTP extension (this >>> one included) to extend the syntax of the EHLO command. >> >> Thank you for that info. >> >> Unfortunately, I'm still wondering about that last question. >> >> If the client cannot (yet) know whether or not the server >> supports internationalized domain names, and if the client >> wishes to do the usual and expected thing, i.e. put its >> domain name into the EHLO, then how MUST that domain name be >> encoded, specifically in the case where the name of the >> client is an IDN? >> >> Punycode? > > Yes, as answered by Arnt. I thought I said that too. Sorry if either Arnt or I were not clear. > RFC 6531 is clear on this: > > 3.7.1. The Initial SMTP Exchange > > When an SMTP connection is opened, the SMTP server sends a > "greeting" > response consisting of the 220 reply-code and some > information. The > SMTP client then sends the EHLO command. Since the SMTP > client > cannot know whether the SMTP server supports SMTPUTF8 > until after it > receives the response to the EHLO, the SMTPUTF8-aware SMTP > client > MUST send only ASCII (LDH label or A-label [RFC5890]) > domains in the > EHLO command. If the SMTPUTF8-aware SMTP server provides > domain > names in the EHLO response, they MUST be in the form of > LDH labels or > A-labels. Yep, seemed pretty clear to me too. If there is any potential confusion is would involve failure to look up "A-label" in RFC 5890 or elsewhere. It implies Punycode encoding for non-ASCII strings and some additional constraints, such as actual validity of the IDN label. > Btw, the proper name for this encoding is ACE, > ASCII-compatible encoding. > Punycode is just a name of an algorithm (RFC 3490). Before > encoding the Unicode string must be normalized... Mark, you are right about "ACE", but "Punycode encoding" is correct too. The reason for using the very precise "A label" (or "A-label") is that it implies all of the other IDNA2008 constraints of which encoding using the Punycode algorithm and NFC normalization are just two. john From nobody Mon Oct 6 16:16:03 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 3A6921A8BBD for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 16:15:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.386 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] 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 tZvA4oj22kV5 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 16:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E06E11A889C for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 16:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h8.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.35] helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1XbHVR-0001tm-Jg; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 19:15:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 19:15:48 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , ima@ietf.org Message-ID: <6453BA02882B855E282325FB@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <44458.1412631638@server1.tristatelogic.com> References: <44458.1412631638@server1.tristatelogic.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: 198.252.137.35 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/F6ZquoYl3elvNPjpOKeLy-BiRKo Subject: Re: [EAI] A simple question 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, 06 Oct 2014 23:15:59 -0000 --On Monday, October 06, 2014 14:40 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" wrote: > Unfortunately, I'm still wondering about that last question. > > If the client cannot (yet) know whether or not the server > supports internationalized domain names, and if the client > wishes to do the usual and expected thing, i.e. put its domain > name into the EHLO, then how MUST that domain name be encoded, > specifically in the case where the name of the client is an > IDN? > > Punycode? I'm still trying to figure out why you are confused or what you think isn't clear, so let me add something to my prior note. In part because we've observed that too many options make implementation harder, interoperability problems more common, and often confuses users, the EAI design tries to allow as few choices as possible. In particular: (1) A conforming i19n SMTP ("EAI") implementation MUST be a conforming IDNA2008 implementation. Can't have EAI without IDNA conformance. (2) IDNA2008 allows exactly two enocdings, called U-labels (a label must be a Unicode. native character, string that conforms to all of the IDNA2008 restrictions) and A-labels (all labels using characters outside the ASCII repertoire must be in Punycode encoding). IDNA2008 also requires that a U-label and the corresponding A-label be duals of each other: one can convert back and forth without information loss (if that is not the case, neither the U-label nor the A-label form is valid). EAI imposes the added requirement that, on the wire, all U-labels MUST be encoded in UTF-8. (3) EAI allows mailbox local parts to be only in UTF-8 (including ASCII). No other Unicode encoding forms, no ASCII Compatible Encoding, no tricks with encoded words, etc. (4) One consequence of the above is that, if U-labels cannot be used and a domain name contains IDN labels, those labels must be in A-label form. The EHLO case (before EAI has been negotiated) is just a special case of that principle. (5) There are technical reasons why it cannot be required, but EAI strongly prefers homogeneity within domain names -- if there is more than one IDN label in a domain name, then all of them should be either A-labels or all of them should be U-labels. The same principle applies to mailbox names (local-part plus domain). Applying the same homogeneity principle to mailbox names (see (3) above) means that both the local part and the domain part of a mailbox should be in UTF-8 (i.e., the domain part uses U-labels if any of its label components are IDNs). Does that help? best, john From nobody Mon Oct 6 16:58:01 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 D311E1A90D5 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 16:57:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.353 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, 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 JTxSs3yR-lig for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 16:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com [69.62.255.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB0D1A90D7 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 16:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.tristatelogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8054F3AF01 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 16:57:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" To: ima@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <6453BA02882B855E282325FB@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:57:58 -0700 Message-ID: <47348.1412639878@server1.tristatelogic.com> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/nrB-wQ2rZqnnj-BwWx6g67l6dfo Subject: Re: [EAI] A simple question 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, 06 Oct 2014 23:58:00 -0000 In message <6453BA02882B855E282325FB@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>, John C Klensin wrote: > > >--On Monday, October 06, 2014 14:40 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" > wrote: > >> Unfortunately, I'm still wondering about that last question. >> >> If the client cannot (yet) know whether or not the server >> supports internationalized domain names, and if the client >> wishes to do the usual and expected thing, i.e. put its domain >> name into the EHLO, then how MUST that domain name be encoded, >> specifically in the case where the name of the client is an >> IDN? >> >> Punycode? > >I'm still trying to figure out why you are confused I'm not... anymore. Somebody answered the question already, so I'm good. Thanks for your concern. {... lengthy technical exposition of all the ins-and-outs snipped... } >Does that help? Well, um, see above. I already got my qustion answered, even before reading your latest message, so it's all good. Thank you again. From nobody Mon Oct 6 19:27:40 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 B71D11A9114 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 19:27:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.879 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021] 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 O_WUrArPYgaJ for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 19:27:37 -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 74FCA1A9112 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 19:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F8FFA0037; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 02:27:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1412648851-20915-20914/12/362; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 02:27:31 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen Cc: ima@ietf.org Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 04:27:32 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.4.1-243-g4a74770; Qt/4.8.6; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <583de810-5802-4e34-a79a-170a623c6d49@gulbrandsen.priv.no> In-Reply-To: References: <44458.1412631638@server1.tristatelogic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/o8wtIWnTPmtz9tyglgYQFHGW7SM Subject: Re: [EAI] A simple question 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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 02:27:38 -0000 All this assumes that the client has a hostname and knows what it is. These days that's not a given. I think that for a client talking to port 587, I'd just send a constant string as hostname. Looking up my own typically NATted address and then doing complex work with it strikes me as pointless makework. Arnt From nobody Tue Oct 7 12:08:11 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 F1B831A8799 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:08:00 -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 V7g8kPsDkREi for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0142.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C143A1A0398 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.160.159.149) by CY1PR0301MB0730.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.160.159.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.10; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:06:39 +0000 Received: from CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.159.149]) by CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.159.149]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.008; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:06:39 +0000 From: Shawn Steele To: "ima@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Punycode Thread-Index: Ac/iYU708CGTZk+6SHKgyINCGfxobw== Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:06:39 +0000 Message-ID: <3429ccca5b3e481195727b9526854778@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e0:ee43::2] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0301MB0730; x-forefront-prvs: 035748864E x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(189002)(199003)(221733001)(20776003)(76482002)(95666004)(101416001)(92566001)(97736003)(108616004)(64706001)(80022003)(4396001)(2656002)(46102003)(106356001)(85852003)(85306004)(31966008)(21056001)(54356999)(105586002)(2501002)(87936001)(86362001)(99396003)(107046002)(107886001)(229853001)(86612001)(2351001)(74316001)(77096002)(76576001)(33646002)(50986999)(120916001)(110136001)(122556002)(40100002)(3826002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0301MB0730; H:CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; 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/FDMfbOR2FZUpa7AekSfc6wIftSQ Subject: [EAI] Punycode 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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:08:01 -0000 > (1) A conforming i19n SMTP ("EAI") implementation MUST be a > conforming IDNA2008 implementation. Can't have EAI without IDNA > conformance. I think that depends on the implementation. EAI allows UTF-8 for most ever= ything. As pointed out it's difficult to complete the SMTP handshake witho= ut having the punicode, however there are many other mail related tasks tha= t can be done without needing to know about IDNA? For example, an application needn't send mail itself, it could gather the i= nformation it needed and then use a compliant STMP library to actually send= the message. In that case the application itself may not need to know any= thing about IDNA itself. Indeed, I'd prefer that applications use IDN/DNS/Mail APIs that abstract aw= ay some of these details. -Shawn=20 From nobody Tue Oct 7 12:24:44 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 799691A0461 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:24:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.386 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] 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 FINnxeRKs7-v for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38C141A87BB for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h8.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.35] helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1XbaML-0001ui-Vb; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:23:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:23:40 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Shawn Steele , ima@ietf.org Message-ID: <9F2F1C1D992AFB692F20CE1C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <3429ccca5b3e481195727b9526854778@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <3429ccca5b3e481195727b9526854778@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.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: 198.252.137.35 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/tm8Fgouj5lHeobaHV3gaHtuepcc Subject: Re: [EAI] Punycode 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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:24:36 -0000 --On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 19:06 +0000 Shawn Steele wrote: >> (1) A conforming i19n SMTP ("EAI") implementation MUST be a >> conforming IDNA2008 implementation. Can't have EAI without >> IDNA conformance. > > I think that depends on the implementation. EAI allows UTF-8 > for most everything. As pointed out it's difficult to > complete the SMTP handshake without having the punicode, > however there are many other mail related tasks that can be > done without needing to know about IDNA? Sorry... difference in terminology rather than a disagreement about substance. When I said "implementation", I was referring to the whole package including the actual application code and any libraries, services, or utilities it called on. I think you are talking, about what I would call the direct/ immediate application code and not the collection. In your vocabulary, I would have said "an i18n SMTP implementation, including all of the relevant libraries, MUST conform to IDAN2008 requirements" or words to that effect. In defense of my choice of wording, if you implemented something that called on, e.g., DNS resolution libraries that did not conform to IDNA and that got the user into trouble or unexpected behavior, your responding to the complaint with "no me, I just used that library over there" might impress your management as they tried to figure out where to assign responsibility for the fix but would almost certainly not impress the user. best, john From nobody Tue Oct 7 12:38:11 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 11F031A1A1E for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:38:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_75=0.6] 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 hvmL-HePYAYp for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2A441A19ED for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:37:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FDF0FA00AD; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:37:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1412710675-20915-20914/12/370; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:37:55 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 21:37:55 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.4.1-243-g4a74770; Qt/4.8.6; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3429ccca5b3e481195727b9526854778@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <3429ccca5b3e481195727b9526854778@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/dy37j2EIrV316lup0ii7BsRF3rc Subject: Re: [EAI] Punycode 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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:38:01 -0000 On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:06:39 PM CEST, Shawn Steele wrote: > I think that depends on the implementation. EAI allows UTF-8 > for most everything. As pointed out it's difficult to complete > the SMTP handshake without having the punicode, however there > are many other mail related tasks that can be done without > needing to know about IDNA? I conform without IDNA. What I send as EHLO argument isn't my hostname, which is a tiny little bit against a rule from, IIRC, 1123. But who cares about that rule? 34.7% of clients that connect to port 587 think their hostname is macbook.local and another 27.9% send "ehlo 192.168.42.42", so that rule is pointless anyway. You can send "ehlo outlook-3-14.microsoft.com" if your version number happens to be 3.14, and that'll be more informative than that "ehlo macbook.local". Arnt From nobody Tue Oct 7 12:42:54 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 C08EE1A1A02 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:42:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.786 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_75=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] 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 oI4Cr4fLNlcV for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 841BF1A19E2 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h8.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.35] helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Xbaem-0001vo-5p; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:42:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:42:43 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Arnt Gulbrandsen , ima@ietf.org Message-ID: <0D37C81305C28A55FE9F7EB0@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: References: <3429ccca5b3e481195727b9526854778@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.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: 198.252.137.35 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/aTdKxamgkBCT70OBwJTkXYjiJ7w Subject: Re: [EAI] Punycode 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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:42:52 -0000 --On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 21:37 +0200 Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:06:39 PM CEST, Shawn Steele > wrote: >> I think that depends on the implementation. EAI allows UTF-8 >> for most everything. As pointed out it's difficult to >> complete the SMTP handshake without having the punicode, >> however there are many other mail related tasks that can be >> done without needing to know about IDNA? > > I conform without IDNA. > > What I send as EHLO argument isn't my hostname, which is a > tiny little bit against a rule from, IIRC, 1123. But who cares > about that rule? 34.7% of clients that connect to port 587 > think their hostname is macbook.local and another 27.9% send > "ehlo 192.168.42.42", so that rule is pointless anyway. You > can send "ehlo outlook-3-14.microsoft.com" if your version > number happens to be 3.14, and that'll be more informative > than that "ehlo macbook.local". As long as the "hostname" is all-ASCII --whether an IP address, something like macbook.local, etc., IDNA is irrelevant (or, if you prefer, you conform to it because you are not using IDN labels). So, unless I misunderstand you, you are conforming _to_ IDNA (which specifies how labels with non-ASCII characters in them are to be handled) even if you are not _using_ IDNA. You may or may not conform to SMTP (or care whether you do or not), but neither IDNA nor EAI are part of the picture above. john From nobody Tue Oct 7 12:46:14 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 2C9D81A06FD for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:46:13 -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, 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 oz0wUoBsweFa for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0751.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:751]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 613EA1A03A6 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.160.159.149) by CY1PR0301MB0732.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.160.159.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.10; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:45:47 +0000 Received: from CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.159.149]) by CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.159.149]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.008; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:45:47 +0000 From: Shawn Steele To: John C Klensin , "ima@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [EAI] Punycode Thread-Index: Ac/iYU708CGTZk+6SHKgyINCGfxobwAAuQ0AAACxUpA= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:45:46 +0000 Message-ID: <279a7e3aee124396af44af91f4ebcb34@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <3429ccca5b3e481195727b9526854778@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <9F2F1C1D992AFB692F20CE1C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <9F2F1C1D992AFB692F20CE1C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e0:ee43::2] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0301MB0732; x-forefront-prvs: 035748864E x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(199003)(51704005)(189002)(13464003)(24454002)(377454003)(19580395003)(76176999)(74316001)(50986999)(99396003)(19580405001)(86362001)(76482002)(85306004)(120916001)(54356999)(85852003)(122556002)(2501002)(97736003)(86612001)(21056001)(95666004)(76576001)(92566001)(105586002)(31966008)(33646002)(107886001)(107046002)(4396001)(106356001)(77096002)(101416001)(46102003)(87936001)(2656002)(20776003)(108616004)(40100002)(64706001)(80022003)(3826002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0301MB0732; H:CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; 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/QP-hdIYyyosUPSAszbj6InRfS1k Subject: Re: [EAI] Punycode 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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:46:13 -0000 Sorry, I was also missing "SMTP" (somehow, I explicitly looked for it :) = And thinking of more general EAI aware apps that may not even deal directly= with that. SMTP specific apps would likely need to know more. Also, it may be 'good' for some apps to be aware of IDNA even if they don't= really need to know about it. Then if they see Punycode when they expecte= d to see Unicode they may be able to do something to be more robust. -----Original Message----- From: John C Klensin [mailto:klensin@jck.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2014 12:24 PM To: Shawn Steele; ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Punycode --On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 19:06 +0000 Shawn Steele wrote: >> (1) A conforming i19n SMTP ("EAI") implementation MUST be a=20 >> conforming IDNA2008 implementation. Can't have EAI without IDNA=20 >> conformance. >=20 > I think that depends on the implementation. EAI allows UTF-8 for most=20 > everything. As pointed out it's difficult to complete the SMTP=20 > handshake without having the punicode, however there are many other=20 > mail related tasks that can be done without needing to know about=20 > IDNA? Sorry... difference in terminology rather than a disagreement about substan= ce. When I said "implementation", I was referring to the whole package inc= luding the actual application code and any libraries, services, or utilitie= s it called on. I think you are talking, about what I would call the direc= t/ immediate application code and not the collection. In your vocabulary, = I would have said "an i18n SMTP implementation, including all of the releva= nt libraries, MUST conform to IDAN2008 requirements" or words to that effect. In defense of my choice of wording, if you implemented something that calle= d on, e.g., DNS resolution libraries that did not conform to IDNA and that = got the user into trouble or unexpected behavior, your responding to the co= mplaint with "no me, I just used that library over there" might impress you= r management as they tried to figure out where to assign responsibility for= the fix but would almost certainly not impress the user. best, john From nobody Tue Oct 7 12:57:31 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 4C1161A1A3A for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:57:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_75=0.6] 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 Vaup6ccSGXAN for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -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 361521A0A6B for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A80FA00AD; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:57:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1412711843-20915-20914/12/371; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:57:23 +0000 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: ima@ietf.org Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 21:57:23 +0200 User-Agent: Trojita/v0.4.1-243-g4a74770; Qt/4.8.6; X11; Linux; Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <80b1953d-79ce-42ca-a921-cfa1a7a7fe45@gulbrandsen.priv.no> In-Reply-To: <0D37C81305C28A55FE9F7EB0@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> References: <3429ccca5b3e481195727b9526854778@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <0D37C81305C28A55FE9F7EB0@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/-ux7lGUB0YpQhXWarjxjJefPcUE Subject: Re: [EAI] Punycode 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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:57:30 -0000 On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:42:43 PM CEST, John C Klensin wrote: > As long as the "hostname" is all-ASCII --whether an IP address, > something like macbook.local, etc., IDNA is irrelevant (or, if > you prefer, you conform to it because you are not using IDN > labels). So, unless I misunderstand you, you are conforming > _to_ IDNA (which specifies how labels with non-ASCII characters > in them are to be handled) even if you are not _using_ IDNA. I suppose you might say so. Put that way it's wonderful: In one stroke I manage to comply with IDNA, X.400 and Fidonet too! > You may or may not conform to SMTP (or care whether you do or > not), but neither IDNA nor EAI are part of the picture above. What I tried to say, again: It's perfectly practical for a port-587 client to send EAI mail without ever using IDNA. Doing so requires one SMTP rule violation, but that SMTP rule is broken so often by so many people that it has lost all force. Arnt From nobody Tue Oct 7 13:20:29 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 4D03C1A1ABE for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:20:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.753 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.753 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_75=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, 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 QNM6wSAwXyiF for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com [69.62.255.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63EC01A1AB3 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.tristatelogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF9E3AE61 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:20:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" To: ima@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:20:25 -0700 Message-ID: <63365.1412713225@server1.tristatelogic.com> Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/wKaPJaED67Q52-tHLpJZtBRqyvo Subject: Re: [EAI] Punycode 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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:20:26 -0000 In message , Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: >On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:06:39 PM CEST, Shawn Steele wrote: >> I think that depends on the implementation. EAI allows UTF-8 >> for most everything. As pointed out it's difficult to complete >> the SMTP handshake without having the punicode, however there >> are many other mail related tasks that can be done without >> needing to know about IDNA? > >I conform without IDNA. > >What I send as EHLO argument isn't my hostname, which is a tiny little bit >against a rule from, IIRC, 1123. But who cares about that rule? I do. So do some other people I know. For some time now I have had turned on the feature(s) in Postfix that provide checking of the HELO/EHLO string. I personally check it to make sure that it is a _not_ in the form [A.B.C.D] (or if it is, then I reject the command and terminate the SMTP session) and also, using a built-in feature of Postfix, I allow Postfix to check to see if the domain name given can be resolved to an IP address. If not, then also in this case the SMTP client will receive a 5xx response and be told to go away. These two checks, together get rid of a LOT of spam. >34.7% of >clients that connect to port 587 think their hostname is macbook.local Well, yes, but now you're talking about trusted/validated/local submission clients, as opposed to stuff coming in from the Internet at large. So that's a whole different case, and one for which rigorous checking of HELO/EHLO strings is, for the reason you have noted, inappropriate. From nobody Tue Oct 7 13:40:28 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 44D2F1A8859 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:40:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.386 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] 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 cth2pHdtYtRf for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BC4B1A8857 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h8.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.35] helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1XbbYP-00020r-VV; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:40:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:40:12 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Shawn Steele , ima@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <279a7e3aee124396af44af91f4ebcb34@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <3429ccca5b3e481195727b9526854778@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <9F2F1C1D992AFB692F20CE1C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <279a7e3aee124396af44af91f4ebcb34@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.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: 198.252.137.35 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/U1xvmjDlZWsw58t0p36JqYTObxw Subject: Re: [EAI] Punycode 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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:40:26 -0000 --On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 19:45 +0000 Shawn Steele wrote: > Sorry, I was also missing "SMTP" (somehow, I explicitly looked > for it :) And thinking of more general EAI aware apps that > may not even deal directly with that. SMTP specific apps > would likely need to know more. > > Also, it may be 'good' for some apps to be aware of IDNA even > if they don't really need to know about it. Then if they see > Punycode when they expected to see Unicode they may be able to > do something to be more robust. Definitely. But that is, it seems to me, to be a separate issue. john From nobody Wed Oct 22 15:57:47 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 0A9501AD405 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:57:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.688 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 E67I3P26gS87 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ijs.si (mail.ijs.si [IPv6:2001:1470:ff80::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7CA11AD406 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:57:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amavis-proxy-ori.ijs.si (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3jNRsr0PHMz1WY; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:57:04 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ijs.si; h= user-agent:message-id:references:in-reply-to:organization :subject:subject:from:from:date:date:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:mime-version:received:received :received:received; s=jakla4; t=1414018619; x=1416610620; bh=IkO qmWaz9zk64EAYMYu9OzKStXfSQVYB0Lko3JQtSMM=; b=JfvrFyyHxCQ6XlZRfmF 0rlBBDoXSD7sd2JQlpl1RoifBF5D0QQRe16a8VtP8sHaBlorGrBnURRK+gfyBONA 8A3a327A4DRVBXO/PHFkWpAZUh868fC7nH0b4YtvBUQCuisgLuWzyxfWX6I1roIB PiMr3Sfq/OJMqDrzNn30jBwc= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ijs.si Received: from mail.ijs.si ([IPv6:::1]) by amavis-proxy-ori.ijs.si (mail.ijs.si [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10012) with ESMTP id KaM5MATHclqh; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:56:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mildred.ijs.si (mailbox.ijs.si [IPv6:2001:1470:ff80::143:1]) by mail.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:56:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from neli.ijs.si (neli.ijs.si [IPv6:2001:1470:ff80:88:21c:c0ff:feb1:8c91]) by mildred.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3jNRsj0bNpzWN; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:56:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sleepy.ijs.si ([2001:1470:ff80:e001::1:1]) by neli.ijs.si with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:56:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:56:57 +0200 From: Mark Martinec To: yaojk Organization: Jozef Stefan Institute In-Reply-To: <2014092514183479282185@cnnic.cn> References: <2014092514183479282185@cnnic.cn> Message-ID: X-Sender: Mark.Martinec+ietf@ijs.si User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.3 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/ChbgvqBDDDF1SO4CZoLG4XynMIg Cc: ima Subject: Re: [EAI] APEC EAI deployment meeting in Beijing 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, 22 Oct 2014 22:57:41 -0000 2014-09-25, Jiankang Yao wrote: > Dear all, > CNNIC will host the APEC EAI deployment meeting in Beijing on 30 > and 31 Oct. 2014. > The meeting venue is in Legendale Hotel Beijing > (http://www.legendalehotel.com/ ). > The topic related to EAI deployment such as email history, IETF > EAI protocol, current implementations, current deployment will be > presented by speakers from all over the world in the first day. > The panel discussion about how to push the EAI deployment will > be arranged in the morning of the second day. After the meeting, we > will arrange to visit CNNIC. > Any interested persons are welcomed to join this meeting. If > anyone has something to share in this meeting, pls kindly let me know > it. >=20 > BTW, There is still an APEC sponsored speaker available. If It > is approved by APEC, the APEC funding will provide economic air > tickets and accomodation and Speaker=E2=80=99s honorarium to the APEC > sponsored speaker. > If anyone is interested in becoming the APEC sponsored speaker > , pls kindly let me know it. > current implementations, current deployment [...] > If anyone has something to share in this meeting, > pls kindly let me know Postfix (MTA) and Amavis (mail content filter) now has support for Internationalized Email (SMTPUTF8, EAI, IDN, ...): http://marc.info/?l=3Dpostfix-users&m=3D141401751825510 http://lists.amavis.org/pipermail/amavis-users/2014-October/003252.html http://www.postfix.org/SMTPUTF8_README.html http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/release-notes.txt Mark From nobody Thu Oct 23 10:35:19 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 4E7FC1A90FF for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:35:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.113 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 2inaDK49_DCh for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ijs.si (mail.ijs.si [IPv6:2001:1470:ff80::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9B21A90A4 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amavis-proxy-ori.ijs.si (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3jNwh01NhFz1G8; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:35:12 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ijs.si; h= user-agent:message-id:references:in-reply-to:organization :subject:subject:from:from:date:date:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:mime-version:received:received :received:received; s=jakla4; t=1414085707; x=1416677708; bh=QAF 8VeBTEinoW3GW7U/IpOQ0b3B/zpEXHxmxLYSkiXw=; b=SpT8Fdr32rvxPa+KopS CkqmBzN/69cXqRYTvGPU4F1GU3CVwReTf36TDjsvpkHRRFWst0Q00CHaPZCPD4Z/ c/s38y42GBHupGUvBk58BuisdeeBW7hQMVt9ooRrXTuUqPKemRoDXZJapnNKt1U0 WF3wyrzjfdPrM8V0y/0FQ23g= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ijs.si Received: from mail.ijs.si ([IPv6:::1]) by amavis-proxy-ori.ijs.si (mail.ijs.si [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10012) with ESMTP id 2SFQOyP_6WOL; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:35:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mildred.ijs.si (mailbox.ijs.si [IPv6:2001:1470:ff80::143:1]) by mail.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:35:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from neli.ijs.si (neli.ijs.si [IPv6:2001:1470:ff80:88:21c:c0ff:feb1:8c91]) by mildred.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3jNwgs2RkHzXh; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:35:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from neli.ijs.si ([2001:1470:ff80:88:21c:c0ff:feb1:8c91]) by neli.ijs.si with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:35:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:35:05 +0200 From: Mark Martinec To: ima Organization: Jozef Stefan Institute In-Reply-To: References: <2014092514183479282185@cnnic.cn> Message-ID: X-Sender: Mark.Martinec+ietf@ijs.si User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.3 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/wUBQoxQZf5FvCJuDL4DWFC521gk Subject: Re: [EAI] APEC EAI deployment meeting in Beijing 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, 23 Oct 2014 17:35:17 -0000 > 2014-09-25, Jiankang Yao wrote: >> [...] current implementations, current deployment [...] >> If anyone has something to share in this meeting, >> pls kindly let me know Apparently there is now a commercial MTA 'Momentum' (from Message Systems) supporting SMTPUTF8 since version 4.1 . http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/message-systems-introduces-latest-version-of-momentum-with-new-api-driven-capabilities-277568381.html Please help fill-in or update the Adoption section in Wikipedia, if someone has additional information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_email#Adoption The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mail_servers could also benefit by growing an additional column of a table to cover internationalized mail (EAI / SMTPUTF8 / IDN / RFC 6530 / ...) Mark From nobody Thu Oct 23 10:44:09 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 CA69A1A90FF for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:44:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.977 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 aWKohDFFosOi for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esv4-mav05.corp.linkedin.com (esv4-mav05.corp.linkedin.com [69.28.149.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 938271A90DF for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:44:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linkedin.com; i=@linkedin.com; q=dns/txt; s=proddkim1024; t=1414086245; x=1445622245; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=sv6uqBaCYYgmxhVjc7jR0LjSsQpIgRYh3xlz2cnoc5g=; b=d1p8CX1rQI5mGI18yvRyyq24qwppxAr944Gkl+TljMxyd5EqtO831nUh x8/zi+EnDitm8ZzMbDZh12e9NPNo1MbNBD7e/lTnwtdP5Q95knq5vFQgO rS2k/hNFYlgew2/snXgQ9vIl+vBDusTGRO1QsVsYhYx4/TjdN7e185iW5 s=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,776,1406617200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="153905918" Received: from ESV4-MB03.linkedin.biz ([fe80::1caa:1422:7ef8:5ceb]) by ESV4-HT01.linkedin.biz ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:44:04 -0700 From: Franck Martin To: Mark Martinec Thread-Topic: [EAI] APEC EAI deployment meeting in Beijing Thread-Index: AQHP2Ii2NTZtwcWYIESOIXe6wuCL+Jw9Wz2AgAE4Z4CAAAKIgA== Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:44:03 +0000 Message-ID: <717118FA-3DCE-4610-BB32-17E06A6438F2@linkedin.com> References: <2014092514183479282185@cnnic.cn> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.18.46.251] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2EE1B3E7-F77E-4557-830B-2B75C7F35459"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/8NuC322CWitbmpIQifVihbijyyk Cc: ima Subject: Re: [EAI] APEC EAI deployment meeting in Beijing 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, 23 Oct 2014 17:44:07 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2EE1B3E7-F77E-4557-830B-2B75C7F35459 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Oct 23, 2014, at 1:35 PM, Mark Martinec = wrote: >> 2014-09-25, Jiankang Yao wrote: >>> [...] current implementations, current deployment [...] >>> If anyone has something to share in this meeting, >>> pls kindly let me know >=20 > Apparently there is now a commercial MTA 'Momentum' (from > Message Systems) supporting SMTPUTF8 since version 4.1 . >=20 > = http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/message-systems-introduces-latest-= version-of-momentum-with-new-api-driven-capabilities-277568381.html >=20 and 3.6.5 both branches 3.x and 4.x are still being developed and supported. --Apple-Mail=_2EE1B3E7-F77E-4557-830B-2B75C7F35459 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 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUST5pAAoJEJHd9Bbysc+aHMcH/3aLtb5V3gE+ruu+xXfpf5ze TequQd1a3I2+8CUSWOi3ydGioG7/qBWxdiJyknObb7ds6E8AElmv+0ib03Ai9JfG 3hW4YeiCoZqXt4LOykepjgPAAv5Vc9mKIdM9mfEgQ3dFwLqaSA8sLUNojk6i8sYr kcXOGWuGscVz38BCXVcQxSNLIfU21KI5EXRGRzhYxWqHXfEHmuyPrLedsfPn8K0O PePSDrNtIooC0/TIu5WhB9sJZA6MZ0g7gTlXcz1CkEtUp5VSvf4ueS0FVzYZkK1M y/SDV6S3rCoQ7eOItNz7KPE9AP+VuMzp8qbALWNvrWUQWdfn9LctsHBCYwCITBs= =0vpX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_2EE1B3E7-F77E-4557-830B-2B75C7F35459--