Il 13 aprile 2019 alle 12.28 John Levine <john.levine@standcore.com> ha scritto:
One of the glaring holes in the EAI documents is that there is no practical advice on choosing mailbox names. We have developed conventions for ASCII names that LDH are fine, dots and plus signs and maybe apostrophes are OK, upper and lower case ASCII are generally interchagable, and beyond that you take your chances. We need appropriate guidance for mailbox names.
This is what I was thinking while reading this discussion: is it time to restandardize mailbox names in a more restrictive manner, recognizing de facto practices such as the above? Perhaps with a double layer, i.e. mailbox names that are allowed for the future and mailbox names that were allowed in the past but can only be kept in use for backward compatibility? I note that there is a lot of "advice" out there (RFCs included) on how to choose a mailbox name, but since it's just advice, many people are still attracted to shiny new stuff and will say "hey, it does not say MUST NOT!".
The IETF's PRECIS working group has advice on identifiers that would be a good place to continue from. I don't know if the IETF has the energy to do that, or if people here could usefully contribute.
I'd be happy to contribute, though I'm not a real expert in the matter. But I would be happy to contribute the boring stuff, e.g. editorial tasks. Ciao, -- Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy