Thanks Arnt. Is there any way to tell whether these 2.5 million installations are the EAI Ready releases? Is there a repository that counts downloads perhaps? At this point, we are only looking at the suggestion of using the alias for an ASCII address when encountering a non-EAI MTA. Can either Exim or Postfix do this?
On 16/01/2018, at 11:15 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> wrote:
3) Should we identify UASG Good Practices where they are not addressed one way or another within the RFCs? Eg Aliasing vs ‘downgrading’ on the fly.
JFYI, there's anything up to 2.5 million MTAs deployed with EAI support now. (It's difficult to tell exactly since a majority has the support disabled in a configuration file. But a couple of million is a good guess. Roughly a million for each of Postfix and Exim, and a few tens of thousands for up to ten other MTAs.)
Don't identify any "good practice" that's at odds with either Postfix or Exim. Even if something was a good idea, the deployed code is better by virtue of being deployed. What we need now is agreement and interoperation.
Anyone who argues that some significant deviation from Postfix/Exim is a good idea risks being heard as saying "the 2008-era RFCs were bad, the 2012-era RFCs were bad, the 2014-16 implementations were bad but THIS time we've got it right". I realise that's not the intention, but it might well be the perception, and that perception would be harmful to further deployment.
Arnt
_______________________________________________ UA-EAI mailing list UA-EAI@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ua-eai
Don Hollander Universal Acceptance Steering Group www.uasg.tech don.hollander@icann.org Skype: don_hollander