Cisco Firewalling method is likely to not know about SMTPUTF8, and as they do deep packet inspection, they are likely to reject packets. We need to find a contact there. On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Mark Svancarek via UA-EAI < ua-eai@icann.org> wrote:
Mark’s notes:
- Anti-spam providers should also be engaged. For example, a bug found recently in EAI support within EOP (the protection service within Office 365) is the reason that EAI support for Exchange Online (EXO) is currently disabled. - Creating ‘rules’ for aliases is an important feature for both software and service providers. - We should be willing to create Informational RFCs and defend them. - Types of things we can put forward in an informational RFC: - Adding a bootstrap alias to the body of a message - Dealing with aliases may be script-specific - Determining rules and formats for NDR messages - How to handle when email address looks like EAI (e.g. Unicode@Unicode) but the UTF8 declaration is missing - What to do when local part contains ACE prefix (i.e. “xn—“) and when remainder is compatible with Punycode transformation - When to normalize local parts (consensus was that we shouldn’t ever change local parts, so this informational would just be a documentation of that consensus) - Normalization can modify digital signatures - Suggestions to mailbox providers regarding which Unicode compositions are preferred - Different providers handle messages sent to multiple senders differently. - Shodun search engine may provide insight. - About 10% of XIM deployments are supporting EAI. That seems bad, but actually at the rate of uptake of those patches, it will be 50+% in 3 years. - I think we agreed that we would advocate for IDNA2008 with compatibility mode to prevent spoofing of German, Greek and Cyrillic – but actually not sure if we got consensus or not - Since reputation if the current approach to anti-malware (as opposed to blocklisting), we should be testing SPF/DKIM. - Local networks can be a problem (anecdote about hotel breaking SMTPUTF8) - I wrote that there is an “EAI ambiguity” in the RFC 5228 Sieve, but I didn’t capture the nature of the ambiguity…
Mark’s action items:
- Clarify is sending-to is currently supported differently than receiving-from in EXO. This would be a transient issue (since support is nominally disabled for both at this time) but it is interesting to investigate. - Get Outlook bugs in Thailand from Throughwave and my local contact there - Contact Terry Zink (Microsoft EOP) and see if he can represent UASG/EAI in Lisbon Jun 12th.
*From:* ua-eai-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ua-eai-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Don Hollander *Sent:* Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:57 PM *To:* ua-eai@icann.org *Subject:* [UA-EAI] Draft Notes
Please find attached my draft notes rom the EAI Meting.
Please advise of any suggested changes
Don
_______________________________________________ UA-EAI mailing list UA-EAI@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ua-eai