--On Monday, April 27, 2015 12:06 -0700 Phillip Carroll
<postmaster@???> wrote:
> On 4/27/2015 8:10 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> ...The only acceptable alternative
>> representation that comes to mind is a table of ascii-only
>> addresses explicitly configured for senders in the MSA's
>> local domains, that are accepted on the reverse path as valid
>> addresses for these same senders. With that, you could
>> encode sender addresses when forwarding ascii-only recipients
>> to non-EAI systems (or sending email to recipients in the
>> same domains for which ascii-only forms exist).
>
> Viktor, I would not define the scheme that you describe as
> "encoding". Instead, I see that as merely an example of a
> particular form of local address aliasing. Aliasing, for
> whatever purpose, is a matter of purely local concern. Using
> that definition, the prohibition against encoding any local
> parts has no need of exceptions of any kind.
Phillip,
Yes. And that is part of the point I was trying to make
(although you just made it much more clearly). SMTP (and
message submission) clearly permit local aliasing. The allow
"encoding" only as an algorithmic way to do local aliasing.
Even case folding is ultimately just an algorithmic way to
generate local aliases.
So, yes, no need for exceptions, just the right perspective on
what is going on.
john
