On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Alireza Saleh <!
saleh+ua@nic.ir> wrote:
Having problem in identifying the local part from the domain part may also happen in fully ASCII email addresses. By start using more RTL addresses the confusion will also increase. One of the solution would be colorizing the email address and URLs in applications when someone receives an email or wanted to brows an address, However we shoudl increase the users knowledge in this area because I think in some cases user herself is responsible for her protection. As I said users also have problem in identifying the TLD from the rest within the URLs because it depends on the reading direction. Basically the RTL native redears start reading from right to left when they arrives at a sentence surrounded by RTL characters even whithin a LTR paragrap! h or context.-AlirezaOn Feb 25, 2015, at 3:16 AM, Mark Svancarek <marksv@microsoft.com> wrote:I agree, any successful solution must conform to the algorithm.It feels doable to me, though, (i.e. it seems more constrained and simpler than generic text/sentences) … assuming the prevailing base direction can be determined (F.E. “local on the left” or “always the same base directionality as the OS language setting” or even “changed from the default to a user preference in the mail app settings page”).As you say, determining the prevailing base direction is the challenge, and one where tools and docs should be clear and prescriptive.Perhaps m3aawg should be involved, but I don’t think our UA team can just throw it over the wall to them. I think we must stay involved. We can turn down the heat today, but I wouldn’t push it all the way to the back burner yet.Does that make sense?From: Brent London [mailto:brentlondon@google.com]
Sen! t: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:15 PM
To: Dusan Stojicevic
Cc: Mark Svancarek; ua-discuss@icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"I think we have an opportunity to set well-defined expectations and ensure implementations converge to them.After ICANN 51 in Los Angeles, Dave Crocker and I started working on rules for this issue, and we found it to be a messier problem than anticipated.People have different views about the "best state" of the world. Some say that the local-part should always be on the left, which creates a confusing UX for RTL users but makes the rule easy to understand. Alternatively, the arrangement could be context-dependent, but that reduces the usability of the string as an identifier and doesn't real! ly solve the problem of confusability.There's also a whole practical question of: can we implement this? The prevalence of the Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm means that, unless the rule conforms to that algorithm, new rules would create a wholenew type of universal acceptance issue, as some systems would process the string per the algorithm, and others would process it per the rule.This is such a messy issue that I think we should kee! p it on the UASG backburner and/or delegate it to a group dedicated to anti-abuse, like the m3aawg.On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs> wrote:Thanks, Brent, and I agree with Mark.
DušanOn 24.2.2015 23:56, Mark Svancarek wrote:Yes, this is my concern. I think we have an opportunity to set well-defined expectations and ensure implementations converge to them.Fully right-to-left email addresses (with a RTL local-part) are pretty rare, so while there may be precedent, I don't think the behavior is well-defined.From: ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brent London
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 2:52 PM
To: Dusan Stojicevic
Cc: ua-discuss@icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"1) ! Where are e-mail solution providers gathering to discuss this? Does a forum already exist? if not, should the UASG create one?I think the appropriate forum for this would be m3aawg, although I'm unsure of whether it's actually been raised there yet.2) Brent: How has Gmail approached this? Ignored the dots in the username side of the address?Gmail uses banner notifications to warn users when there's something problematic about a message, e.g., a suspicious From heade! r. See the first expandable section of this article for more info.Gmail ignores dots in the usernames of gmail.com addresses, which is doable because Gmail controls the gmail.com namespace. So hello.world@gmail.com goes to the same user ashelloworld@gmail.com. We can't, however, do that for other domains. For example, helloworld@outlook.com and hello.world@outlook.com are different users.So, consumer mail clients are prepared with the LTR rule: that on the left side from "@" sign is name, and on the right side is domain name.
But, they don't check this rule.
I presume that in the R! TL world, consumer mail clients do the same - with RTL rule.I think the circumstances are different in the RTL world. Fully right-to-left email addresses (with a RTL local-part) are pretty rare, so while there may be precedent, I don't think the behavior is well-defined.On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs> wrote:Dear all,
We have RTL problem in LTR world already. Try this.
F.E. / I will use ASCII just to make a point>
com.gmail@stojicevic.dusan
I send one email to this mail address and it gone "as usual".
After a minute, I've got a massage in attach.
So, consumer mail clients are prepared with the LTR rule: that on the left side from "@" sign is name, and on the right side is domain name.
But, they don't chec! k this rule.
I presume that in the RTL world, consumer mail clients do the same - with RTL rule.
The real question is - should mail clients check this?
Regards,
Dušan
On 24.2.2015 2:17, Mark Svancarek wrote:I’ve seen some discussion activity at w3.org (as recently as last December https://www.w3.org/International/wiki/EAI_Address_Issues ) but it doesn’t seem actionable. I think we’ll need to use this group to get all similar issues clarified and make them usable by developers.From: ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Don Hollander
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:46 PM
To: Brent London
Cc: ua-discuss@icann.org; Edmon Chung
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"Th! anks Brent, Alireza & Edmon.This is a very interesting question of the approach that a software supplier might take.I have two questions:1) Where are e-mail solution providers gathering to discuss this? Does a forum alread! y exist? if not, should the UASG create one?2) Brent: How has Gmail approached this? Ignored the dots in the username side of the address?I think it’s very interesting.Don!On 24/02/2015, at 1:18 pm, Brent London <brentlondon@google.com> wrote:It becomes problematic, as Edmon mentioned, when there are dots in both sides. It's especially confusing if both sides contain a string that plausibly could be a TLD:On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Alireza Saleh <saleh+ua@nic.ir> wrote:There is no problem as long as the usernames starts and ends with a character with a property of AL (Arabic Letter), R (Right to left) or L (Left to right) otherwise in a LTR context it may jump around @ sign and make the address unreadable. The email address may also become unreadable in LTR context If the username part starts with L and ends with AL like :the red part is username.-AlirezaOn Feb 22, 2015, at 11! :47 AM, Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> wrote:
What about where the username part contains a dot or other separators? Is there a difference between “.” And “-“ or “_”?!etc.?EdmonFrom: ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alireza Saleh
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:07 PM
To: Edmon Chung
Cc: ua-discuss@icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"This is very interesting question. I’ve also thought about it before. This is a new topic and there is no similar experiences. I don’t have exact answer to this question but overall I think people mainly prefer the RTL version with right alignement. however the bidi property of @ allows its usage in the middle of RTL texts without creating any confusions unlike <http://>.-AlirezaOn Feb 22, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> wrote:
That applies to email (EAI) addresses as well I suppose?Which Brent has been bringing up.So, within a RTL ! context (e.g. if the user interface or other elements are RTL) one should expectIs ! that correct Alireza?EdmonFrom: ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alireza Saleh
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:54 AM
To: Mark Svancarek
Cc: ua-discuss@icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"Dear Mark,Just a quick note about your question, it is expected the label starts from the right side of the address baar, and from right to left. So the main issue would be the alignment. Natively it should look like:-AlirezaOn Feb 20, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Mark Svancarek <marksv@microsoft.com! > wrote:
Hi, I had some questions regarding my recent usage of the term “RTL”. By this I mean “right to left”, a characteristic of Arabic and Hebrew. At Microsoft we also call this “bidi” (bidirectional).Here’s a discussion regarding RTL. (I’ve also attached a much more detailed explanation, which includes Microsoft’s recommendations, but it’s in PowerPoint. Hopefully you already! use a compatible viewer.)Bidi display of IRIs (URLs/URIs)
Bidirectional display of IRIs (an IRI with some Right-To-Left characters, eg: Arabic) has some odd quirks. There’s an IETF WG working on creatin! g an IRI RFC. It’d be nice if we could help ensure that there were reasonable standards for the display of bidi IRIs. The existing IRI drafts suggest using the Unicode Bidi Algorithm to display IRIs, but that has some problems.User and government feedback indicates that our current behavior is a bit unexpected. Currently we have some odd quirks about the display of Bidi IRIs in Microsoft. This is just an example, other places may have different odd quirks.
...
[Message clipped]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
To: dusan@dukes.in.rs
Cc:
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 08:04:19 +0000
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
com.gmail@dusan.stojicevic
Technical details of permanent failure:
DNS Error: Address resolution of dusan.stojicevic. failed: Domain name not found
----- Original message -----
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-mes! sage-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=oV7WQ8lryXPSsTVyIzYLp3QZdFh+3U95bpv4Okv/xjI=;
b=QqLxV2xWblSmXtEvb8ak92Y3nnpQMC6pqDr5pp817ubddgmuUJqPdviXYpj0UTqa+V
X8+F7jISs2TUpugEXyFYwG9OVo9AbD5tbgvYd+L+sZhEicjmJ1VkK10yCcj2g/4Lll1F
NQjLy+uL7xhiXudx3DRVN3FebiZ9MT2mf8NWNHfJzodeTiQqfTZ39spVDzuZJUoID3WR
j4wSf1iVpBKximpwxU/PXSPF1exepSDJBGNSk/XX6DCKEpl3AmemheU/52Bs1xO5Cf/i
uEt66tW5W5ufTLKtRaOH/BnPFHTUtpnT26txciwpZI8zuGPm0GNefFFhbOwQjggFxLrf
93hA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlQhBKx8PrtsJjuCaKmlNYZK/+74aUgVNjwV2wkNFRmTp/ZveDMMVEMS/l7lo4b9aGuvha/
X-Received: by 10.180.77.166 with SMTP id t6mr28567023wiw.28.1424765057763;
Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:04:17 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <! dusan@dukes.in.rs>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (178-221-219-238.dynamic.isp.telekom.rs. [178.221.219.238])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s5sm23757985wia.1.2015.02.24.00.04.15
for <com.gmail@dusan.stojicevic>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:04:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54EC3080.1080807@dukes.in.rs>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:04:16 +0100
From: Dusan Stojicevic <dusan@dukes.in.rs>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: com.gmail@dusan.stojicevic
Subject: proba
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150223-1, 02/23/2015), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
---
Ova e-pošta je provjerena na viruse Avast protuvirusnim programom.
http://www.avast.com
