Russ Allbery writes:
I am also making the assumption that a standard requiring e-mail or IMAP
to handle unencoded UTF-8 in message headers and in newsgroup names is not
a viable option, due to strong oppposition from the e-mail community.
Actually, there's very little opposition (especially among implementors)
to requiring all MTAs, MUAs, etc. to handle UTF-8 messages. Eventually
we will all be using UTF-8; all relevant bugs must be fixed. Only the
wildest ``7 bits forever!'' proponents, such as Keith Moore, disagree.
The real controversy is over whether we should also do _other_ things
before UTF-8 is working everywhere. For example, should we introduce
some ad-hoc 7-bit character encoding for newsgroup names?
Many of us (especially implementors) believe that these short-term 7-bit
kludges have huge costs (as illustrated by your message) and miniscule
benefits. We believe that the 7-bit kludges should be dropped.
Our opponents are claiming that the IESG will demand a 7-bit solution.
But they aren't opposing the requirement of UTF-8 support; they're
opposing the reliance on UTF-8 as the sole solution.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago