Dear all:

Thanks for the variety of contribution on this topic.

Here is what I have heard:

1. The UASG cannot recommend any transformation of a mailbox at any time for any reason. 
2. The UASG accepts that a replacement of a non-ascii mailbox name with an ascii mailbox name can be used in very limited circumstances – basically where the sending system ‘owns’ the sending mail address and an ascii address is pre-defined in a alias field and the first hop is clearly not EAI Ready.
3. Mailbox administrators can use any characters or set of characters not explicitly disallowed by the RFCs in their mailbox configurations.  
   1. Does the UASG recommend any approach to avoid confusion?   I would rather point to someone else’s well considered work in this area.  Does such exist?
4. We may include an Appendix in the EAI Documentation with some history and examples of transformations that were discarded and why.

Don

Don Hollander

Secretary General – UASG

Skype: Don_Hollander