In <200208191752(_dot_)g7JHqA028041(_at_)astro(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
You need therefore some foolproof way to distinguish between an encoded
local-part and an unencoded one. This means placing some restriction on
local-parts as presently defined.
you do the same thing that IDN did:
- you pick an encoding that is extremely unlikely to have been used in
a real local-part.
- you *always* use the encoded form on the wire.
it doesn't require a change to the message format.
Yes, you can do a nasty kludge like that, but it would be far better to
review the definition of local-part, and decide on a sensible structure
that carefully excluded the encoded forms.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5