[EAI] Re: From Jari: Re: Your DISCUSS on draft-ietf-eai-framework-05 (fwd)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[EAI] Re: From Jari: Re: Your DISCUSS on draft-ietf-eai-framework-05 (fwd)



"Charles Lindsey" <chl at clerew.man.ac.uk> writes
in gmane.ietf.ima:

> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:18:26 -0000, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > As mentioned above, "mail storage agent" is not well-defined or
> > formally part of the model
> >
> >> cannot safely assume that agents accessing email storage
> >
> > It is a little worse than that.  It may use some protocol --
> > either LMTP or something that is not standardized in the IETF --
> > to deliver to the mail store.  If the mail store, or the path to
> > it, doesn't have UTF8SMTP capability, the delivery SMTP server
> > is stuck.   Worse, it may deliver messages to different
> > addresses (mailboxes) into different message stores using
> > different protocols.  If some of them are fully capable of
> > handling UTF-8 headers and message content, and some are not, it
> > should probably advertise the options ...
> 
> If a server advertises UTF8SMTP, then it is ofering a guarantee:
> 
>     "Either I will ensure that this messages is handed off, in exactly
> the  form received, to some user/mailbox/store/system/whatever that is
> willing  to offer essentially the same guarantee;
>     OR I will downgrade it before passing it to any
> user/mailbox/store/system/whatever that cannot give that guarantee;
>     OR I will send it back up the Return-Path with an explanation that
> it  could not be delivered."
> 
> This implies, to me, that even if there are internal communications
> (LMPT,  porocmail scripts, whatever) for routeing mail for different
> local-parts  through different channels, the MTA itself needs to be
> configured with  basic information as to which local-parts/channels
> can offer the UTF8SMTP  capability. Sounds like a case for a bit of
> sendmail.cf hacking :-( .

On stronger form that  user/mailbox/store/system/whatever  system
is arranged that way that non UTF8SMTP agents no not see UTF8SMTP
messages.

For local delivery agent (LDA) that means that UTF8SMTP and ASCII messages
are stored to different mailbox (files or directories or whatever).

If communigation between MTA and LDA use LMTP no "sendmail.cf hacking"
should be needed -- UTF8SMTP negation should work also with LMTP.

/ Kari Hurtta


_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
IMA at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima




Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.