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

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> 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."

Before picking the last exit it could also reject the mail at RCPT TO or
DATA time.  Bouncing to unverified Return-Paths is considered as net abuse
today, the receiver would be blacklisted.

Actually a tricky issue if MAIL FROM and RCPT TO are all-ASCII, and only
the header indicates that the DATA is a message/utf-8.

> 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 :-( .

Really tricky.  Minimally we've to explain the issue somewhere, probably
in the SMTP draft.

Frank



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