Thanks Yao.

What do people do until ‘…all major email service providers…” are upgraded.

And, do you have any sense of how you will measure such success?   Once 10 billion email addresses under management are achieved?

Don

From: Jiankang Yao <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
Reply-To: yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
Date: Friday, 4 November 2016 at 9:16 PM
To: Don Hollander <don.hollander@icann.org>, "ua-eai@icann.org" <ua-eai@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [UA-EAI] Reachability vs Standards

In EAI protocol designs, it assumes that all major email service providers will be upgraded to support EAI.

I think that adherence to the IETF standards is very important.

---

Jiankang Yao

From: Don Hollander

Date: 2016-11-04 10:39

To: ua-eai@icann.org

Subject: [UA-EAI] Reachability vs Standards

During the UASG Workshop yesterday, there was discussion about reachability vs adherence to the standards.

As I understand it…

Non-EAI mail supports ascii only in the mailbox name and the domain name.  

A mail application can convert an IDN domain name to ascii through the Punycode conversion process before the message goes ‘out on the wire’, so it should arrive where it’s expected even though it may not look like it ‘should’  (punycode instead of the IDN)

But, what about the mailbox name?   If it is in Unicode and the message is sent to a non-EAI mail platform, will the message be rejected?  Will it just disappear?   Is this good practice?

Coremail, at our workshop in Marakesh, told us that if the receiving mail system does NOT support EAI, then they convert the Unicode mailbox name into an ASCII name which they alias in their mail environment - so any replies will go to the original unicode mailbox.  

Is this another one of those instances that would benefit from community discussion?

Don

Don Hollander

Universal Acceptance Steering Group

Skype: don_hollander

_______________________________________________

UA-EAI mailing list

UA-EAI@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ua-eai