YAO Jiankang wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
The start of section 2.5 is rather obscure:
The "ALT-ADDRESS" requires an all-ASCII address. There are two
alternative ways to set ALT-ADDRESS value: one is set by the
sender using the all-ASCII address, the other is set using the
transformed email address.
IMO the other way is that the MSA (knowing the sender) could supply
an ALT-ADRESSS for the MAIL FROM. If that's in some way "transformed"
or not is the local business of the MSA.
IMO, "transformed" address should not be produced by MSA or MTA.
The sender should have some other method to produce "transformed"
address as the alternate address.
Then I miss a clue what "the other is set using the transformed email
address" or "some other method to produce 'transformed' address" is.
IIRC we discussed "standard transformations", and then decided that
it's a bad idea. But there can be still "local conventions" at the
"mail originating network" (Keith's MON) to derive a working local
all-ASCII address for a given local UTF8SMTP address.
That local convention can be known by the MSA, or for what's it
worth by the MUA, and then MSA or MUA could automatically transform
the local _sender_ address into an all-ASCII ALTADDRESS using this
local convention.
But the sender (MUA or MSA) can't do anything about the address of
the receiver, the receiver has his own local convention (if any).
The following discussion about "transformations" could be deleted,
we didn't pick that option. It's also unclear what "the predefined
way" is, (quote) the sender can specify that these addresses are
safe to be converted in the predefined way (unquote). For the RHS
there is a clear predefined way, but not for the LHS.
this discussion exists because some member is not clear about why
we did not prefer "transformed" address.
Replacing "predefined way" by "local convention" I still don't see
what this paragraph is about.
------------------------------------------------------------------
