It is, or is supposed to be, a sealed system implemented as a set of
interlocking extensions to existing email facilities.
So, if I have an "email" message, I can no longer just parse it. Instead,
there are actually two
types of email messages, and the only way to know how to parse it is to
know a priori which type it is.
Because all systems are "sealed" and there's never any leakage.
Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. First and foremost, in practice you have never
been able to "just parse" email messages, for the simple reason that too many
message creation agents don't follow the rules and create wildly incompliant
messages. So there's always some heuristics involved, unless of course you're
willing to only accept syntacticaly valid messages, in which case yes, you
can "just parse" messages, including EAI messages.
Where the lines are drawn has always been a tradeoff, and one which has
changed over the years. It used to be the case that a lot more crap was
generally tolerated. The spam problem has led to an overall tightening up
what's tolerated.
Second, because of overall lack of compliance, there have always been
many types of messages.
Third, of course there's leakage.
As for just check for 8 bit messages... on to the next part.
Our problem is that this isn't actually true in practice. Prior to
launching support for 6532 messages, we've already had to support
widespread use of 8bit messages that were not always in utf8. Since
these
typically didn't specify which charset they were in, we used a variety of
techniques including direct charset detection on such messages.
It depends on what you mean by "8bit message". If you mean messages with
8bit
in the body data, then sure, that's fully standard and widespread.
But 8bit of any sort in a header at any level was a standards violation
prior
to RFC 6532. And since there are many 8bit charsets, and telling them
apart is
in general impossible (although intelligent guesses can be made) without
labeling (which implies conversion to 7bit), this was never a terribly
interoperable thing to be doing from day 1.
Yes, it wasn't a great idea. Apparently, strict adherence to spec was not
a strong concern from the non-English speaking world. And, this worked
fine before "global" services, such that local sites would just assume
local charsets for these broken messages. We've had to do auto-detection
on messages for quite a while, and yes, its sometimes broken.
Actually, no, it sucked from the get-go. Entire books were written on how to
deal with the CJK disaster long before any of this was anything even close to
being "global".
This mess is part of what led to the development of MIME. Yes, it really
does go back that far.
The problem we're having with 6532 messages, is that we moved from
explicitly identified charsets via 2047/etc mechanisms, to "its just
utf8"... and sometimes we mis-detect the utf8 as cp1250 or other
encodings.
No message created prior to the release of support for RFC 6532 can be
assumed
to be a RFC 6532 message. Now, if you want to vet those messages using some
sort of process to insure such a message meets the syntax and at least
looks
semantically sensible, then I suppose you could set the flag in the
metadata.
But if you can't distinguish such messages from legitimate RFC 6532
created and
submitted by compliant clients, it sounds to me like you're not retaining a
really critical piece of envelope/metadata in your implementation.
Yes. And the most obvious place for that information, to me, is in the
headers of the message. Assuming that every mechanism for exchanging email
messages needs an explicit external piece of data...
Sorry, I'm not going to revisit or defend past design decisions. My point was
and is that when you said that a piece of information was missing, that
statement was incorrect.
You may not like or agree with how this was done. (For that matter, I never
said I liked or agreed with how it was done.) But for better or worse, there's
now a standard in place, and absent compelling evidence of there being a
problem with implementing that standard - evidence which AFAICT you have not
provided - it's not appropriate to propose competing mechanisms to that
standard.
Is there a separate three letter filename extension for 6532 messages, for
example? (for platforms which use such things).
Yes there is: .u8msg. See RFC 6532 section 3.7.
Now, as hinted at in the consensus to remove such a marker from the
draft,
we can certainly add such a header when composing 6532 messages or when
we
receive any message via SMTPUTF8 for our own utility, but I would think
there would be some utility in such a marker being mutually understood
and
shared.
Please don't. This is the sort of thing that wrecks standards.
So, its ok to write a specification to have such a header but doing so
wrecks standards?
Or are you saying it would be fine for us to have such a header, but not to
leak it?
It's one thing to manifest such a marker in your IMAP store as a header. People
have been exposing various sorts of store metadata that way for years, and it
seems to have been Mostly Harmless.
It's quite another to write a specification advocating using such a mechanism
to identify messages. It that's done it will create silly states when EAI
messages are sent with such a marker but not SMTPUTF8 flag and vice versa.
Ned
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822