From ned+ima@mrochek.com Sun Apr 1 10:24:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21BDB21F8A74 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 10:24:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fK1azxESsxvm for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 10:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70C621F8A73 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 10:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01ODSUHZ6JNK000IWR@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 10:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01ODNXKOYL8000ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 10:24:01 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+ima@mrochek.com Message-id: <01ODSUHXIBIY00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:18:28 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 29 Mar 2012 22:13:10 +0200" <4F74C256.40800@gulbrandsen.priv.no> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN References: <4F673168.3010201@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <4F6788B5.3000800@isode.com> <4F679AC2.5000606@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <4F68595E.90503@isode.com> <4F74C256.40800@gulbrandsen.priv.no> To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:24:10 -0000 > Alexey Melnikov answered me: > >> a) This is a peculiar case, since it only ever applies to unaware > >> clients and not, for example to any messages that are legal according to > >> core IMAP. b) IMAP CONVERT is not a shining success of deployment and > >> usage, so I think that if this document should follow any of its > >> example, then good concrete reason is needed. > > Although true, I don't think preconditions for the Lemonade discussion > > have changed, so I think the conclusions are still valid. > Those conclusions played a part in getting zero deployment, so I weigh > the factors differently now. My two cents, of course, but I've come to > place great emphasis on having a short, easily-read spec that's both > easy and simple to implement. I would caution against drawing any conclusions from the lack of success of IMAP CONVERT, or Sieve CONVERT for that matter. Server-side conversions have a long history of not being nearly as interesting or useful to users as developers believe them to be. This goes all the way back to products like MAILbus Conversion Manager back in the mid 1980s and many other examples since then. And in the rare cases where such facilities get any traction, it's usually for applications they weren't really intended for. Ned From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Sun Apr 1 18:07:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5955611E8085 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 18:07:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -95.883 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.883 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.993, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MANGLED_SPAM=2.3, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9EVY4+QNsnJr for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0FA11E80A1 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 18:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q32178Rq007041 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 10:07:08 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 677f_4ab2_2b872c02_7c60_11e1_9bf7_001d096c5782; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:07:08 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:53487) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 10:07:11 +0900 Message-ID: <4F78FBBA.4030104@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:07:06 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John C Klensin References: <4F7185C8.5020105@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <97C3D02E3C3BAF053CD0D6B8@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <97C3D02E3C3BAF053CD0D6B8@PST.JCK.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Barry Leiba , Arnt Gulbrandsen , IMA Discussion Subject: Re: [EAI] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-02 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 01:07:19 -0000 On 2012/03/29 23:13, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 17:17 +0200 Barry Leiba > wrote: > >>> There is at least one exception. Section 2.3 (about Subject) >>> does not (yet) end with "[RFC2047], perhaps adding a prefix >>> or suffix to inform the user of the downgrading." Alexey >>> wants it, and I think one other person did too? Martin? I >>> know I'm being sloppy about names. Yes indeed. See below. >>> Anyway. I'll add it if there's support. Personally I'm >>> against it, since the downgrade process is largely harmless >>> except when the user wants to reply, and when the user wants >>> that there are clear markers on every affected address. >> >> I'm very much against it. We can "downgrade" (actually, >> encode; there's no real downgrading going on here) the subject >> with NO loss of data and NO ugliness. Let's not screw that up >> by making it ugly on purpose. > > Agree. As a general guideline, I think that it is reasonable to > make any translation or transition that can be made with no loss > of information without adding notes. In addition, adding notes > to Subject lines after they are transmitted is a bad idea > because the recipient has no idea where the note came from (take > the number of perfectly good messages that arrive with "[ s p a > m ]" in the subject line as an example). That's of course annoying, but there are usually way more messages with [ s p a m ] in the subject line that are actually spam. Speaking only from my personal experience, such a header actually improves my processing speed even if there are occasional false positives. Of course your millage may vary. > If people think they need a note that transformations were > applied, let's mandate doing it with a track field ("Received:" > or otherwise is a separate discussion) that explains that > something was done and by whom. And that part of the > behavior, fwiw, should preferably be uniform between simple and > not-simple downgrading. I don't mind adding a track field, if that's what others want. But for whom is that? There are three possibilities: - The MUA: This doesn't apply, because I don't think there will be many MUAs that deal with downgrading. If anybody wants to spend work on an MUA, just work on the upgrade. - A human debugger: These are few and far between. Not every family has a resident email 'expert'. And if they have such an 'expert', that person may be able to fix setup glitches, but not much more. Humans have a tendency to imagine that others are like us, but usually that's not at all the case, in particular when it comes to something like email experience. - The actual user: For the actual user to notice something, there has to be a change in one of the fields that are displayed in the average folder overview. Now From is changed, and that's usually displayed, but that doesn't count because an EAI address may be seen for the first time. This is in particular important in a scenario where the user reads mail only from one device/MUA, or all devices/MUAs are non-EUA-aware. That's why I think it should be *allowed* to tweak the subject. IMAP and POP server developers can still make the choice to not implement it, or to leave it configurable. Regards, Martin. From barryleiba@gmail.com Sun Apr 1 23:56:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A2E21F8680 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:56:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.632 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.745, BAYES_05=-1.11, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_SPAM=2.3, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ZN7bO5+pJTr for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:56:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70CE21F867F for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:56:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbtb4 with SMTP id tb4so1423886obb.31 for ; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:56:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vKXGjvACP97Nv087WWfMzJjlZkWvj3NGnizPUqd0YcM=; b=LUg84QZ7SWEnx5ZzqOOzlIQMYdUJd+r68WrjpKgIP4fVDyopLYPjp9JIa70mGHo/fl ELMQom/WXJIo0RW5ou/ao29FxVY7nqfHUVNDF8H5BNjIs6/ohV1t+oreAsKRS6uRHpk8 3y/9upLe+uWj4A+6md8g9oOJa6yPThCrG/GQ5xW6ieUw9sezl8xrEY6yiS4+OlBYzTym 0DhJHj+db7hDdkHmIT6UVAlhypqAM7psBGA5WS0AUREmd7lzRu1iNx+qglpftJdH0Se2 UZnceqCDQdpnpBIRlclSEBJv42C7AyRgBZRWl2Q1Sl29tyRm4FIe24tyHrShK/QDRj7S H3GQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.154.7 with SMTP id vk7mr273106obb.22.1333349782315; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:56:22 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.10.68 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:56:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F78FBBA.4030104@it.aoyama.ac.jp> References: <4F7185C8.5020105@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <97C3D02E3C3BAF053CD0D6B8@PST.JCK.COM> <4F78FBBA.4030104@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:56:22 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZaKpt5UQspX7DqcC-_QNCLVB67s Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04479fdd22e1b204bcacb0a5 Cc: IMA Discussion Subject: Re: [EAI] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-02 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 06:56:23 -0000 --f46d04479fdd22e1b204bcacb0a5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > That's of course annoying, but there are usually way more messages > with [ s p a m ] in the subject line that are actually spam. Speaking only > from my personal experience, such a header actually improves There's a big difference between labelling messages you want to filter out, such as spam, and labelling messages that the *user* just wants to read without annoyance or encumbrance. The user doesn't care about downgrading; the user just wants to read the messages. > The actual user: For the actual user to notice something, there has > to be a change in one of the fields that are displayed in the average > folder overview. Explain why the user wants to notice anything. My mother wouldn't understand what was going on, and would only be annoyed. She might call her ISP's help line, which would be a disaster on anything more than a tiny scale. > That's why I think it should be *allowed* to tweak the subject. IMAP and > POP server developers can still make the choice to not implement it, or > to leave it configurable. The problem is that this is a configuration decision for the client, not for the server, but by altering the subject you're having the server make the choice. Bad. And by definition, the client can't do it, because this is specifically for old clients that don't understand. Please let's leave this alone. Barry --f46d04479fdd22e1b204bcacb0a5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > That's of course annoying, but there are usually way more messa= ges
> with [ s p a m ] in the subject line that are= actually spam. Speaking only
> from my personal experience, such a header actually improves

There's= a big difference between labelling messages you want to filter out, such a= s spam, and labelling messages that the *user* just wants to read without a= nnoyance or encumbrance. =A0The user doesn't care about downgrading; th= e user just wants to read the messages.

> The actual user: For the actual user to notice something, there h= as
> to be a change in one of the fields that are displayed in the average<= br>> folder overview.
Explain why the user wants to n= otice anything.
My = mother wouldn't understand what was going on, and would only be annoyed= . She might call her ISP's help line, which would be a disaster on anyt= hing more than a tiny scale.

> That's why I think it should be = *allowed* to tweak the subject. IMAP and
> PO= P server developers can still make the choice to not implement it, or
> to leave it configurable.

The problem is that this is a configuration decision for the client= , not for the server, but by altering the subject you're having the ser= ver make the choice. =A0Bad. =A0And by definition, the client can't do = it, because this is specifically for old clients that don't understand.=

Please let's leave this alone.<= /span>

Barry --f46d04479fdd22e1b204bcacb0a5-- From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Mon Apr 2 00:20:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE58711E8075 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:20:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -95.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.630, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MANGLED_SPAM=2.3, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id miikg4x1ybQN for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21AD11E8073 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q327KMMe024890 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 16:20:22 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 72a2_7b0b_4f23db40_7c94_11e1_ad5d_001d096c566a; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:20:21 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:58705) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 16:20:22 +0900 Message-ID: <4F795334.8010906@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:20:20 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <4F7185C8.5020105@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <97C3D02E3C3BAF053CD0D6B8@PST.JCK.COM> <4F78FBBA.4030104@it.aoyama.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IMA Discussion Subject: Re: [EAI] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-02 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 07:20:34 -0000 Hello Barry, others, On 2012/04/02 15:56, Barry Leiba wrote: >> That's of course annoying, but there are usually way more messages >> with [ s p a m ] in the subject line that are actually spam. Speaking only >> from my personal experience, such a header actually improves > > There's a big difference between labelling messages you want to filter out, > such as spam, and labelling messages that the *user* just wants to read > without annoyance or encumbrance. The user doesn't care about downgrading; > the user just wants to read the messages. On first approximation, I agree. But next, the user may want to reply. >> The actual user: For the actual user to notice something, there has >> to be a change in one of the fields that are displayed in the average >> folder overview. > > Explain why the user wants to notice anything. > My mother wouldn't understand what was going on, and would only be annoyed. > She might call her ISP's help line, which would be a disaster on anything > more than a tiny scale. She may call her ISP's helpline if there's some special tag. Or she might not. But then she'll try to reply, and that won't work. Then a call to a helpline has a rather higher probability. And then, the same thing (not being able to reply) might happen again a day later, or a week later, or a month later, or what not. It will become very annoying to try to reply but not have it working. It may be easier (it would definitely be easier for me, but of course, I don't want to claim that I'm in any way representative) to understand what's happening if all the mails that can't be replied to have the same label. Also, imagine the call to the ISP. If she complains that she wasn't able to send, the helpline staff can ask "did the Subject say [foo]"? If yes, they already know the answer in most cases. Without a label, they'll have to ask all kinds of questions, many of which will be difficult because of privacy concerns, and that will take time. I never worked at an ISP, or at a helpdesk, so I can't judge what's better, but it doesn't look so clear to me that no label is always better. >> That's why I think it should be *allowed* to tweak the subject. IMAP and >> POP server developers can still make the choice to not implement it, or >> to leave it configurable. > > The problem is that this is a configuration decision for the client, not > for the server, but by altering the subject you're having the server make > the choice. Bad. And by definition, the client can't do it, because this > is specifically for old clients that don't understand. I agree that it's suboptimal that the server has to make the choice. But I'd still think it's better than the user not having any information at all, or the server not having a choice. Regards, Martin. > Please let's leave this alone. > > Barry > From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Mon Apr 2 00:42:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72EC21F886C for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:42:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RV6o2TKMWxAp for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FA821F886B for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6C1F8DF01; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 07:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1333352517-11789-11788/10/1; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 07:41:57 +0000 Message-Id: <4F7958B2.8030902@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 09:43:46 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ima@ietf.org References: <4F7185C8.5020105@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <97C3D02E3C3BAF053CD0D6B8@PST.JCK.COM> <4F78FBBA.4030104@it.aoyama.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Subject: Re: [EAI] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-02 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 07:42:01 -0000 With my document editor hat off: I'm now against even allowing changes to Subject, since I think it's a) not helpful to those users who have several clients and know which one(s) support(s) internationalized mail and b) confusing to many of the others. Arnt From johnl@iecc.com Mon Apr 2 05:55:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0BB21F86B9 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:55:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Je1NJ9RwYPzf for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:55:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E5421F86B6 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1062 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2012 12:55:52 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2012 12:55:52 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f79a1d8.xn--btvx9d.k1204; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=YK1b+SoYR5G10J3p+R6VEqTKZhQxPv6uVvfp6WSBOv4=; b=CCme80dYVN1dEuKQfhPntHkRzan37CzHzQjer8BXZTntoYejVRq44Z8GrSbKB86iXbtVhHfjKmz3ZyMfAxcYxhV+vrjT3t/ry5tX8GjzzWOxFWtxBh+dy+OoyuybtZcdSd+0icI/FaSoB6TzGcDEQhT3SzqA5nw9agiyHs2ZD5M= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f79a1d8.xn--btvx9d.k1204; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=YK1b+SoYR5G10J3p+R6VEqTKZhQxPv6uVvfp6WSBOv4=; b=H/5+jDl/Pze5S5qBDxRQE/eryHv91JZoEeKRBRKmUxy5DPqvZwr9zu9/dJJc6udK6ibWK5YJ+gcZU3sBXU8HOJ7cvMMQcc6Yb+1gVI6NPA/GW8z/SEIkJsfZTkZsvJIGb8Nu9oWCaiZVbYSDYNpM9iiSuh0EGcZso9V0tYKM340= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 2 Apr 2012 12:55:30 -0000 Message-ID: <20120402125530.2456.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: ima@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4F7958B2.8030902@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Subject: Re: [EAI] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-02 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:55:56 -0000 >With my document editor hat off: I'm now against even allowing changes >to Subject, since I think it's a) not helpful to those users who have >several clients and know which one(s) support(s) internationalized mail >and b) confusing to many of the others. Does that include changing straight UTF-8 to =?utf-8?B?= ? I can see arguments for and against, somewhat separate from changes that change what the user is expected to see. R's, John From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Mon Apr 2 05:58:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC4021F8433 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:58:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qmgozgD4O4Zh for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10CAE21F842E for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF13F8DB41; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:58:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1333371514-11789-11788/10/2; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:58:34 +0000 Message-Id: <4F79A2E8.1050607@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:00:24 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: John Levine References: <4F7185C8.5020105@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <97C3D02E3C3BAF053CD0D6B8@PST.JCK.COM> <4F78FBBA.4030104@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4F7958B2.8030902@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <20120402125530.2456.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120402125530.2456.qmail@joyce.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-02 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:58:37 -0000 John Levine answers me: >> With my document editor hat off: I'm now against even allowing changes >> to Subject, since I think it's a) not helpful to those users who have >> several clients and know which one(s) support(s) internationalized mail >> and b) confusing to many of the others. > > Does that include changing straight UTF-8 to =?utf-8?B?= ? Sorry, that was carelessly phrased. No. I meant substantive changes, not the RFC2047 encoding already specified in the draft. Arnt From jyee@afilias.info Fri Apr 6 08:15:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10A7321F85C2 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 08:15:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.665 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gWfo7EIElOEz for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 08:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC47621F85B8 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 08:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ms5.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.111] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SGAt8-0007LU-76 for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:15:46 +0000 Received: from mail-iy0-f178.google.com ([209.85.210.178]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SGAt8-0007Fr-3G for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:15:46 +0000 Received: by iakl21 with SMTP id l21so3589098iak.9 for ; Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:15:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=9hvFvtW44MZRx87NgZBfTBW5Qrtl7QTp0EuTmVQQo+U=; b=NlaZ8DQyM9+SA6hHjN7FmYeRG+r/io7lKvHRGpQsiPFuf9m7qEiHUvDw2YguzsZBQK mn76pvkJYgOZAXKIj2/9oCMUwB4Pyd51b4fWItslbmGQJq4xHPwYm1MM623m9FS8x4wC W+j440BmuncUEfj+wD1G9Y4vU1PoMLtMS7rTaXTRLAzFFTWUh2AspvBJk6sdyoGLw50a +RT2fFOc7wuWvZZd/uphz9SIUCWARfkwFJ2n1RESkbLo1GXNT26Iw3HaWPSooDr2aGDE c2IYe7gcXAYX2iwqLEbhR4mY7c5MceUKzANHRTyli9uGuwsiUxAACZ7wM2ivJa49687C cnUg== Received: by 10.50.158.202 with SMTP id ww10mr5236184igb.30.1333725345125; Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.103] (69-165-150-97.dsl.teksavvy.com. [69.165.150.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id us6sm3459006igc.9.2012.04.06.08.15.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Joseph Yee In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 11:15:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3EB69AAD-38DA-4D1D-9D2D-46CC37104652@afilias.info> References: To: "ima@ietf.org WG" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkY5ymkNBQcQXYcy/aSA7TXZrWcbS3FwYGGtORbkX+AsbuA5j9abUQx6T7Asp4/vxF+uJPb Subject: Re: [EAI] Doodle poll for IETF EAI April 2012 Interim Meeting time X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:15:49 -0000 A friendly reminder to everyone of the doodle poll for EAI April interim = meeting. The poll will close at next Tuesday April 10. And to all = editors, please submit your revision by April 12 so all participants = have enough time to review for the meeting in following week. For any = issues, please contact John and myself. thanks Joseph On 2012-03-18, at 11:46 PM, Joseph Yee wrote: > All, >=20 > Please visit the doodle link below to let us know of your available = time so that we can schedule an interim jabber based meeting to discuss = the core documents (POP, IMAP, and both downgrades) and any outstanding = issue. >=20 > Note, the range of the meeting time is the third week of April, and = given many participant located in either North American or East Asia, = most time were picked at either before typical work hours or after = typical work hours (unless you are in US west coast), and no weekend = (Saturday, Sunday) in anyone's timezone. If no good time were available = from first round, I will expand the range but it remains the third week = of April for now. Thanks. >=20 > http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk >=20 > Regards, > Joseph Yee, co-chair of EAI From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 08:00:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8677E11E80EC; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:00:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1t6myH1bLA1h; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2FF11E80E6; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:00:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120410150049.26267.69890.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:00:49 -0700 Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-04.txt X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:00:49 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Email Address Internationalization Wo= rking Group of the IETF. Title : POP3 Support for UTF-8 Author(s) : Randall Gellens Chris Newman Jiankang Yao Kazunori Fujiwara Filename : draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-04.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2012-04-10 This specification extends the Post Office Protocol version 3 (POP3) to support un-encoded international characters in user names, passwords, mail addresses, message headers, and protocol-level textual strings. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-04.txt From yaojk@cnnic.cn Tue Apr 10 16:57:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7EA111E8122 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:57:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.846 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yUVZe7K25Jx1 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4286911E811A for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:57:37 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO lenovo47e041cf) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:57:31 +0800 Message-ID: <9E6CD4A2EB0C42AF8061DD842E028DB1@LENOVO47E041CF> From: "Jiankang YAO" To: References: <20120410150049.26267.69890.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:58:03 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-04.txt X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:57:41 -0000 dGhlIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIGltcHJvdmVzIHRoZSB0ZXh0cyBhbmQgYWRkIHRoZSByZWZlcmVuY2Ug dG8gc2ltcGxlIGRvd25ncmFkZS4NCg0KSmlhbmthbmcgWWFvDQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNz YWdlIC0tLS0tIA0KRnJvbTogPGludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZz4NClRvOiA8aS1kLWFu bm91bmNlQGlldGYub3JnPg0KQ2M6IDxpbWFAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpTZW50OiBUdWVzZGF5LCBBcHJp bCAxMCwgMjAxMiAxMTowMCBQTQ0KU3ViamVjdDogW0VBSV0gSS1EIEFjdGlvbjogZHJhZnQtaWV0 Zi1lYWktcmZjNTcyMWJpcy0wNC50eHQNCg0KDQo+IA0KPiBBIE5ldyBJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdCBp cyBhdmFpbGFibGUgZnJvbSB0aGUgb24tbGluZSBJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdHMgZGlyZWN0b3JpZXMu IFRoaXMgZHJhZnQgaXMgYSB3b3JrIGl0ZW0gb2YgdGhlIEVtYWlsIEFkZHJlc3MgSW50ZXJuYXRp b25hbGl6YXRpb24gV29ya2luZyBHcm91cCBvZiB0aGUgSUVURi4NCj4gDQo+IFRpdGxlICAgICAg ICAgICA6IFBPUDMgU3VwcG9ydCBmb3IgVVRGLTgNCj4gQXV0aG9yKHMpICAgICAgIDogUmFuZGFs bCBHZWxsZW5zDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBDaHJpcyBOZXdtYW4NCj4gICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEppYW5rYW5nIFlhbw0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgS2F6dW5vcmkgRnVqaXdhcmENCj4gRmlsZW5hbWUgICAgICAgIDogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1l YWktcmZjNTcyMWJpcy0wNC50eHQNCj4gUGFnZXMgICAgICAgICAgIDogMTQNCj4gRGF0ZSAgICAg ICAgICAgIDogMjAxMi0wNC0xMA0KPiANCj4gICBUaGlzIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gZXh0ZW5kcyB0 aGUgUG9zdCBPZmZpY2UgUHJvdG9jb2wgdmVyc2lvbiAzIChQT1AzKQ0KPiAgIHRvIHN1cHBvcnQg dW4tZW5jb2RlZCBpbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIGNoYXJhY3RlcnMgaW4gdXNlciBuYW1lcywNCj4gICBw YXNzd29yZHMsIG1haWwgYWRkcmVzc2VzLCBtZXNzYWdlIGhlYWRlcnMsIGFuZCBwcm90b2NvbC1s ZXZlbA0KPiAgIHRleHR1YWwgc3RyaW5ncy4NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBBIFVSTCBmb3IgdGhpcyBJbnRl cm5ldC1EcmFmdCBpczoNCj4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJh ZnQtaWV0Zi1lYWktcmZjNTcyMWJpcy0wNC50eHQNCj4gDQo+IEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0cyBhcmUg YWxzbyBhdmFpbGFibGUgYnkgYW5vbnltb3VzIEZUUCBhdDoNCj4gZnRwOi8vZnRwLmlldGYub3Jn L2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy8NCj4gDQo+IFRoaXMgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnQgY2FuIGJlIHJldHJp ZXZlZCBhdDoNCj4gZnRwOi8vZnRwLmlldGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC1pZXRm LWVhaS1yZmM1NzIxYmlzLTA0LnR4dA0KPiANCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gSU1BIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBJTUFAaWV0Zi5vcmcN Cj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9pbWE= From jyee@afilias.info Wed Apr 11 15:24:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E2811E80D9 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:24:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N8sVK4yw5POp for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4CF911E8073 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ms5.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.111] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SI5xt-0004u3-8l for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:24:37 +0000 Received: from mail-iy0-f178.google.com ([209.85.210.178]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SI5xt-00080z-54 for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:24:37 +0000 Received: by iakl21 with SMTP id l21so2009370iak.9 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:24:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=vFVmCT+HK2q2ob/ZXZ5LFnTj37o7V4YxZ3RZyySRTZY=; b=aXilHNPe5tY4x/brob4kEvY/550v9lU3J8EpRBKqsITvgPLiQ+f60KINH0qIBR4MmX r+yJzQZ7+wv46/L4WCIGsncG+3Wuahjmhldp8Rvn+Pno9jFreZDDzIEBJsANcmNnsCEa euZvtysyAInyDHskDcEv7JmVO0wV6mA8IIOggRKvh8N82nb8qvdwW1IcLB7ajrPFzZ38 MRLOKsdxTcwN9pD3/g3aBE2yzyWPCtlaoJhF2qXGHbKPcu6GsrJvqL6Z2/D5uJNKQMVy 3lV7QWXUTbWt1c7ke15fILJ7kyXhl45j2OZaHHZgFf3dw2enBoed9g5WPkdgJtS3K6pM dzug== Received: by 10.50.153.162 with SMTP id vh2mr1750935igb.38.1334183077136; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:24:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jyee-lt.tor.afilias-int.info (tor-gateway.afilias.info. [199.15.87.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hq3sm61269509igc.0.2012.04.11.15.24.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Joseph Yee In-Reply-To: <3EB69AAD-38DA-4D1D-9D2D-46CC37104652@afilias.info> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:24:33 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <21CD9856-FD76-43EE-A28F-4C962AF157E4@afilias.info> References: <3EB69AAD-38DA-4D1D-9D2D-46CC37104652@afilias.info> To: "ima@ietf.org WG" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmoYcPbgLwOkEv2n9RjVa87V3BfF/A8dn1mVz5erw+5O2ZSsafSW5zl4YKelC9oaia9qwhv Subject: [EAI] EAI April 2012 Interim Meeting Time (Re: Doodle poll for IETF EAI April 2012 Interim Meeting time) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:24:45 -0000 All, Based on the doodle poll (http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk), we = will meet at 8am US Eastern Tuesday April 17 (the earliest time where = everyone is available). The estimation is 90 minutes for the meeting. = For now, the current agenda is draft discussion of POP3 UTF8 = (RFC5721bis), IMAP UTF8 (RFC5738bis), both downgrade drafts, and any = other drafts to be considered. I will send out detailed agenda again tomorrow, and friendly reminder to = all editors to send an revision by April 12, so that everyone has enough = time to review. (And thanks to JianKang and others for RFC5721bis = revision). Thanks Joseph On 2012-04-06, at 11:15 AM, Joseph Yee wrote: > A friendly reminder to everyone of the doodle poll for EAI April = interim meeting. The poll will close at next Tuesday April 10. And to = all editors, please submit your revision by April 12 so all participants = have enough time to review for the meeting in following week. For any = issues, please contact John and myself. >=20 > thanks > Joseph >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 2012-03-18, at 11:46 PM, Joseph Yee wrote: >=20 >> All, >>=20 >> Please visit the doodle link below to let us know of your available = time so that we can schedule an interim jabber based meeting to discuss = the core documents (POP, IMAP, and both downgrades) and any outstanding = issue. >>=20 >> Note, the range of the meeting time is the third week of April, and = given many participant located in either North American or East Asia, = most time were picked at either before typical work hours or after = typical work hours (unless you are in US west coast), and no weekend = (Saturday, Sunday) in anyone's timezone. If no good time were available = from first round, I will expand the range but it remains the third week = of April for now. Thanks. >>=20 >> http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk >>=20 >> Regards, >> Joseph Yee, co-chair of EAI >=20 From klensin@jck.com Wed Apr 11 17:24:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF2411E8109 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:24:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q79CriFJUSMQ for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477C211E80B8 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SI7kJ-000Cii-0Y; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:18:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:23:55 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Joseph Yee , "ima@ietf.org WG" Message-ID: <2D19C5365D55D6C1661D1830@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <21CD9856-FD76-43EE-A28F-4C962AF157E4@afilias.info> References: <3EB69AAD-38DA-4D1D-9D2D-46CC37104652@afilias.info> <21CD9856-FD76-43EE-A28F-4C962AF157E4@afilias.info> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [EAI] EAI April 2012 Interim Meeting Time (Re: Doodle poll for IETF EAI April 2012 Interim Meeting time) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:24:03 -0000 Folks, IETF rules for Interim, non-face-to-face, Meetings require two week's formal notice, so we seem to have missed the cutoff for doing this on the 17th. Please stand by -- we will get back to you about a revised plan within the next 24 hours. john --On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 18:24 -0400 Joseph Yee wrote: > All, > > Based on the doodle poll > (http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk), we will meet at 8am > US Eastern Tuesday April 17 (the earliest time where everyone > is available). The estimation is 90 minutes for the meeting. > For now, the current agenda is draft discussion of POP3 UTF8 > (RFC5721bis), IMAP UTF8 (RFC5738bis), both downgrade drafts, > and any other drafts to be considered. > > I will send out detailed agenda again tomorrow, and friendly > reminder to all editors to send an revision by April 12, so > that everyone has enough time to review. (And thanks to > JianKang and others for RFC5721bis revision). > > Thanks > Joseph > > > On 2012-04-06, at 11:15 AM, Joseph Yee wrote: > >> A friendly reminder to everyone of the doodle poll for EAI >> April interim meeting. The poll will close at next Tuesday >> April 10. And to all editors, please submit your revision by >> April 12 so all participants have enough time to review for >> the meeting in following week. For any issues, please >> contact John and myself. >> >> thanks >> Joseph >> >> >> >> On 2012-03-18, at 11:46 PM, Joseph Yee wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> Please visit the doodle link below to let us know of your >>> available time so that we can schedule an interim jabber >>> based meeting to discuss the core documents (POP, IMAP, and >>> both downgrades) and any outstanding issue. >>> >>> Note, the range of the meeting time is the third week of >>> April, and given many participant located in either North >>> American or East Asia, most time were picked at either >>> before typical work hours or after typical work hours >>> (unless you are in US west coast), and no weekend (Saturday, >>> Sunday) in anyone's timezone. If no good time were >>> available from first round, I will expand the range but it >>> remains the third week of April for now. Thanks. >>> >>> http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk >>> >>> Regards, >>> Joseph Yee, co-chair of EAI >> > > _______________________________________________ > IMA mailing list > IMA@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Wed Apr 11 22:53:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC5021F85A3 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:53:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.122 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.717, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HEAD=1.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r3DuWH-Oz90f for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 205BB21F859A for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B447F8E1E7; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:53:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1334210001-19751-19750/11/2; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:53:21 +0000 User-Agent: Kaiten Mail In-Reply-To: <21CD9856-FD76-43EE-A28F-4C962AF157E4@afilias.info> References: <3EB69AAD-38DA-4D1D-9D2D-46CC37104652@afilias.info> <21CD9856-FD76-43EE-A28F-4C962AF157E4@afilias.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=----RMKBM2XXCT74V2IMMA6XQISZAK2NDI From: Arnt Gulbrandsen Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:53:14 +0200 To: ima@ietf.org Message-Id: <08df0097-8fec-4a0c-94f3-a2a3ff4dcfe5@email.android.com> Subject: Re: [EAI] EAI April 2012 Interim Meeting Time (Re: Doodle poll for IETF EAI April 2012 Interim Meeting time) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:53:25 -0000 ------RMKBM2XXCT74V2IMMA6XQISZAK2NDI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, My downgrade draft is in shape. I am sure a review by hardie would find = buried treasure, but absent such xrays there's nothing I want to change = in the next days. Arnt ------RMKBM2XXCT74V2IMMA6XQISZAK2NDI Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

My downgrade draft is in shape. I am sure a review by hardie would find = buried treasure, but absent such xrays there's nothing I want to = change in the next days.

Arnt ------RMKBM2XXCT74V2IMMA6XQISZAK2NDI-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Apr 13 03:51:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D250621F87AB; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:51:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.492 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NPMeeyMFkSVi; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:51:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DDEA21F8615; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:51:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120413105146.32611.86145.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:51:46 -0700 Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-05.txt X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:51:46 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Email Address Internationalization Wo= rking Group of the IETF. Title : Post-delivery Message Downgrading for Internationalized = Email Messages Author(s) : Kazunori Fujiwara Filename : draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-05.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2012-04-13 The Email Address Internationalization (SMTPUTF8) extension allows UTF-8 characters in mail header fields. Upgraded POP and IMAP servers support internationalized Email messages. If a POP/IMAP client does not support Email Address Internationalization, POP/IMAP servers cannot send Internationalized Email Headers to the client and cannot remove the message. To avoid the situation, this document describes a conversion mechanism for internationalized Email messages to be in traditional message format. In the process, message elements requiring internationalized treatment are recoded or removed and receivers are able to know that they received messages containing such elements even if they cannot treat the internationalized elements. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-05.txt From jyee@afilias.info Sun Apr 15 20:15:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00EAC21F8904 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:15:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.042 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PelKqnqTDSxT for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A992B21F88EB for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ms6.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.112] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SJcPb-0000tn-5h for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:15:31 +0000 Received: from mail-vb0-f50.google.com ([209.85.212.50]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SJcPb-0002Ic-8I for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:15:31 +0000 Received: by vbnl22 with SMTP id l22so3558589vbn.9 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:15:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=Rborux2DHEXY1cZVwecNznFwwZ4WcLLPhQWdtSd3c5U=; b=Wm8Xc84+kuyPHmCq+KLPgNYsXOY3+mXleaeQdoOohuVGXOmP+qBUbwYgxgjGFoen23 1LzUn7HmBJXMh+bxtOyacSvG+XpzUOAwIGf8GsbzzkZy8XLjlFvGxq5CqpFad2IqY8t6 Ue9pq4b/Vblfcn9/sbQtPNZg8Ee+MkKf+Fl9manm+kVK01ANIL4Wtdlq6yUL9zIzMXMq 8ln6rJ7I/OCsMvclvjx5Ohjh9hd+K0OZj5eZROTFtHl8RkSj98w7ZPTq/UFdw5O+7k/X 6MjXyDVZtayq3MQ1StA80GBqiSv2WFNTDiwWn9MHmIdZdNDnagZ/jCt2AvIrct5hiADf g8Eg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.198.135 with SMTP id eo7mr5225672vcb.35.1334546130948; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.178.71 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:15:30 -0400 Message-ID: From: Joseph Yee To: John C Klensin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba53aabe1251b604bdc33c7e X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmYdq+cmjjvdstdV2uQoZVtfyl0BFy0/IMulcFWhSDMTErPaxR7eKG6/k+N1A7SwZyLdOyX Cc: "ima@ietf.org WG" Subject: [EAI] update: Poll for Interim Meeting at May (Re: EAI April 2012 Interim Meeting Time) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:15:36 -0000 --90e6ba53aabe1251b604bdc33c7e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 All, I'm sorry that I made a mistake last night not making announcement 2 weeks in advance. There will be no interim meeting at April 17. I would like to ask everyone to the poll for the next best time in the week of May 14 - 18. By rules, announcement must be make in advance by 2 weeks, and given arranging agenda and coordinating with IETF & IESG, the announcement is bes to make by April 26. Please follow the doodle link below for the poll by April 25. http://www.doodle.com/4b477tu2ex63n9ys Thanks Joseph On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:23 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > Folks, IETF rules for Interim, non-face-to-face, Meetings > require two week's formal notice, so we seem to have missed the > cutoff for doing this on the 17th. Please stand by -- we will > get back to you about a revised plan within the next 24 hours. > > john > > > --On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 18:24 -0400 Joseph Yee > wrote: > > > All, > > > > Based on the doodle poll > > (http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk), we will meet at 8am > > US Eastern Tuesday April 17 (the earliest time where everyone > > is available). The estimation is 90 minutes for the meeting. > > For now, the current agenda is draft discussion of POP3 UTF8 > > (RFC5721bis), IMAP UTF8 (RFC5738bis), both downgrade drafts, > > and any other drafts to be considered. > > > > I will send out detailed agenda again tomorrow, and friendly > > reminder to all editors to send an revision by April 12, so > > that everyone has enough time to review. (And thanks to > > JianKang and others for RFC5721bis revision). > > > > Thanks > > Joseph > > > > > > On 2012-04-06, at 11:15 AM, Joseph Yee wrote: > > > >> A friendly reminder to everyone of the doodle poll for EAI > >> April interim meeting. The poll will close at next Tuesday > >> April 10. And to all editors, please submit your revision by > >> April 12 so all participants have enough time to review for > >> the meeting in following week. For any issues, please > >> contact John and myself. > >> > >> thanks > >> Joseph > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2012-03-18, at 11:46 PM, Joseph Yee wrote: > >> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> Please visit the doodle link below to let us know of your > >>> available time so that we can schedule an interim jabber > >>> based meeting to discuss the core documents (POP, IMAP, and > >>> both downgrades) and any outstanding issue. > >>> > >>> Note, the range of the meeting time is the third week of > >>> April, and given many participant located in either North > >>> American or East Asia, most time were picked at either > >>> before typical work hours or after typical work hours > >>> (unless you are in US west coast), and no weekend (Saturday, > >>> Sunday) in anyone's timezone. If no good time were > >>> available from first round, I will expand the range but it > >>> remains the third week of April for now. Thanks. > >>> > >>> http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Joseph Yee, co-chair of EAI > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IMA mailing list > > IMA@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima > > > > > --90e6ba53aabe1251b604bdc33c7e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All,=C2=A0

I'm sorry that I =C2=A0made a mistake last night not = making announcement 2 weeks in advance. =C2=A0There will be no interim meet= ing at April 17. =C2=A0I would like to ask everyone to the poll for the nex= t best time in the week of May 14 - 18. =C2=A0

By rules, announcement must be make in advance by 2 weeks, a= nd given arranging agenda and coordinating with IETF & IESG, the announ= cement is bes to make by April 26. =C2=A0

Please follow the doodle l= ink below for the poll by April 25.


Thanks
Joseph

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 = at 8:23 PM, John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> wrote:
Folks, IETF rules for Interim, non-face-to-f= ace, Meetings
require two week's formal notice, so we seem to have missed the
cutoff for doing this on the 17th. =C2=A0Please stand by -- we will
get back to you about a revised plan within the next 24 hours.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0john


--On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 18:24 -0400 Joseph Yee
<jyee@afilias.info> wrote:
> All,
>
> Based on the doodle poll
> (= http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk), we will meet at 8am
> US Eastern Tuesday April 17 (the earliest time where everyone
> is available). =C2=A0The estimation is 90 minutes for the meeting.
> For now, the current agenda is draft discussion of POP3 UTF8
> (RFC5721bis), IMAP UTF8 (RFC5738bis), both downgrade drafts,
> and any other drafts to be considered.
>
> I will send out detailed agenda again tomorrow, and friendly
> reminder to all editors to send an revision by April 12, so
> that everyone has enough time to review. =C2=A0(And thanks to
> JianKang and others for RFC5721bis revision).
>
> Thanks
> Joseph
>
>
> On 2012-04-06, at 11:15 AM, Joseph Yee wrote:
>
>> A friendly reminder to everyone of the doodle poll for EAI
>> April interim meeting. =C2=A0The poll will close at next Tuesday >> April 10. =C2=A0And to all editors, please submit your revision by=
>> April 12 so all participants have enough time to review for
>> the meeting in following week. =C2=A0For any issues, please
>> contact John and myself.
>>
>> thanks
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2012-03-18, at 11:46 PM, Joseph Yee wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Please visit the doodle link below to let us know of your
>>> available time so that we can schedule an interim jabber
>>> based meeting to discuss the core documents (POP, IMAP, and >>> both downgrades) and any outstanding issue.
>>>
>>> Note, the range of the meeting time is the third week of
>>> April, and given many participant located in either North
>>> American or East Asia, most time were picked at either
>>> before typical work hours or after typical work hours
>>> (unless you are in US west coast), and no weekend (Saturday, >>> Sunday) in anyone's timezone. =C2=A0If no good time were >>> available from first round, I will expand the range but it
>>> remains the third week of April for now. =C2=A0Thanks.
>>>
>>> http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Joseph Yee, co-chair of EAI
>>
>
> __________________= _____________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima





--90e6ba53aabe1251b604bdc33c7e-- From msk@cloudmark.com Sun Apr 22 22:40:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA69F21F855A for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:40:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.405 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_BELOW=2.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cFwQo2Mah13X for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5373221F8550 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 1Hg91j0010ZaKgw01Hg9bL; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:40:09 -0700 X-CMAE-Match: 0 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=RaES+iRv c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=ePc26DvMG94A:10 a=vw5VcccR_g0A:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=1Sm0OzTQm6NuZiD6JywA:9 a=fw4e2_QzWMPskRVf5VAA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=1pRwPKKZSpJ0N9xb7YQA:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117 Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:40:09 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , "ima@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis Thread-Index: Ac0hE4tEkHnbRv/ZRPWrgYoADgR2Mw== Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:40:08 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FEE4E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.22.1.153] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FEE4Eexchmbx901corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335159609; bh=U+MzK5P5KEiajicxFQJzpnYlbPy/QCKgZ31Aee5nos8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=UXDWR77g9CQpql4AOKt3keShWKf3g/hbfVqBMqnIBA87UzcLu0uyQ09gJE3Hl5KId bhO8Vab1GauoGn/HrXkigbjPP2qzvFEehYgcb/9MfIpUv09bnSUZ5bhKpZWuSyIj8E 29u8LPc+vTV6EyeJkxGgTyEPEBfzgbkJfgAw1DHw= Subject: [EAI] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:40:12 -0000 --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FEE4Eexchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate (appsdir) reviewe= r for this draft. (For background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools= .ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate). [NOTE: This is an early review request received by AppsDir. We typically r= eview documents that are in IETF Last Call, so please ignore the boilerplat= e saying so.] Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you m= ay receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD be= fore posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-04 Title: POP3 Support for UTF-8 Reviewer: Murray S. Kucherawy Review Date: April 22, 2012 IETF Last Call Date: n/a IESG Telechat Date: n/a Summary: LANG fr Ce document est presque pret a etre publie en tant qu'un RFC, mais il a que= lques questions qui devraient etre resolues avant de la publication. LANG en Major Issues: None. Minor Issues: 1) Section 2: When LANG is issued with no parameters, thus requesting a lis= t of supported languages, is that list expected to be ordered in any way? It doesn't really matter, but the document should probably say one way or t= he other. If a list order is specified by one of the referenced RFCs, I mi= ssed it. 2) Section 3.1: "The UTF8 command MAY fail." This seems to be dangling. Ca= n you say why, even if it's "for any operational reason" or something that just sounds less random? 3) It seems to me the second and fifth paragraphs of Section 3.1 could be m= erged, though that might make the fifth one even larger than it is. It's possible the second could simply be dropped in favour of the fifth as the f= ormer seems to be a subset of the latter. The authors might also want to consider splitting the fifth one someplace, perhaps where it starts talking= about sizes. 4) Section 5 refers to the "UTF-8" Response Code, when it's actually "UTF8"= . This is a bit confusing. 5) Section 3.2: The USER argument to the UTF8 capability tells the client s= omething about the USER, PASS and APOP commands. As all of those are basically authentication/credential commands, perhaps something less specif= ic like "LOGIN", "AUTH" or "CRED" would be more appropriate? Otherwise it = looks more like it only applies to the USER command. 6) This document uses RFC2119 language. In the Introduction, it says "emai= l messages may be transmitted". Suggest s/may/might/ or s/may/could/. 7) Similarly, there's a lot of use of non-caps "may" in Section 3.1. 8) Section 5, last paragraph: s/downconvert/down-convert/, and (alas) rathe= r than talking about "mood", say something about having the resources to do= wn-convert where it didn't before or something like that. Nits: 1) The end of the second paragraph of the introduction is a long sentence t= hat contains a list of what this document accomplishes. I suggest turning it into a bulleted list rather than "This document does A, and B, and C, an= d D, and ..." 2) There's frequent reference to "UTF-8 headers" where, in at least some ca= ses, "UTF-8 header fields" is probably more accurate. 3) There's inconsistent use of reference name styles when referring to othe= r drafts, e.g. [popimap-downgrade] vs. [I-D.ietf-eai-simpledowngrade]. Sug= gest converting the former to look like the latter. 4) Section 3.1: "Note that even in UTF-8 mode, MIME binary content-transfer= -encoding is still not permitted." Can a reference be added to where that'= s stipulated? 5) Section 6: "The section 2 and 3" and "The section 5" need to be changed = to just "Sections 2 and 3" and "Section 5", respectively. 6) Section 7: I'm not a fan of normative language in Security Consideration= s. Normative stuff belongs in earlier sections. I suggest changing the MUS= T in the second paragraph to "are strongly advised to". 7) Section 7: "integrity-protect" should be "protect the integrity of", and= there should be a comma after "[RFC2595]". 8) Section 3.1: "high guesses are better than small ones"; "small" should p= robably be "low". -MSK --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FEE4Eexchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have been selected as the Applications Area Direct= orate (appsdir) reviewer for this draft.  (For background on appsdir, = please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDi= rectorate).

 

[NOTE: This is an early review request received by A= ppsDir.  We typically review documents that are in IETF Last Call, so = please ignore the boilerplate saying so.]

 

Please resolve these comments along with any other L= ast Call comments you may receive.  Please wait for direction from you= r document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

 

Document: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-04

Title: POP3 Support for UTF-8

Reviewer: Murray S. Kucherawy

Review Date: April 22, 2012

IETF Last Call Date: n/a

IESG Telechat Date: n/a

 

Summary:

LANG fr

Ce document est presque pret a etre publie en tant q= u'un RFC, mais il a quelques questions qui devraient etre resolues avant de= la publication.

LANG en

 

Major Issues:

 

None.

 

Minor Issues:

 

1) Section 2: When LANG is issued with no parameters= , thus requesting a list of supported languages, is that list expected to b= e ordered in any way?

It doesn't really matter, but the document should pr= obably say one way or the other.  If a list order is specified by one = of the referenced RFCs, I missed it.

 

2) Section 3.1: "The UTF8 command MAY fail.&quo= t;  This seems to be dangling. Can you say why, even if it's "for= any operational reason" or something that

just sounds less random?

 

3) It seems to me the second and fifth paragraphs of= Section 3.1 could be merged, though that might make the fifth one even lar= ger than it is.  It's

possible the second could simply be dropped in favou= r of the fifth as the former seems to be a subset of the latter.  The = authors might also want to

consider splitting the fifth one someplace, perhaps = where it starts talking about sizes.

 

4) Section 5 refers to the "UTF-8" Respons= e Code, when it's actually "UTF8".  This is a bit confusing.=

 

5) Section 3.2: The USER argument to the UTF8 capabi= lity tells the client something about the USER, PASS and APOP commands.&nbs= p; As all of those are

basically authentication/credential commands, perhap= s something less specific like "LOGIN", "AUTH" or "= ;CRED" would be more appropriate?  Otherwise it looks more like i= t only applies to the USER command.

 

6) This document uses RFC2119 language.  In the= Introduction, it says "email messages may be transmitted". = Suggest s/may/might/ or s/may/could/.

 

7) Similarly, there's a lot of use of non-caps "= ;may" in Section 3.1.

 

8) Section 5, last paragraph: s/downconvert/down-con= vert/, and (alas) rather than talking about "mood", say something= about having the resources to down-convert where it didn't before or somet= hing like that.

 

Nits:

 

1) The end of the second paragraph of the introducti= on is a long sentence that contains a list of what this document accomplish= es.  I suggest turning

it into a bulleted list rather than "This docum= ent does A, and B, and C, and D, and ..."

 

2) There's frequent reference to "UTF-8 headers= " where, in at least some cases, "UTF-8 header fields" is pr= obably more accurate.

 

3) There's inconsistent use of reference name styles= when referring to other drafts, e.g. [popimap-downgrade] vs. [I-D.ietf-eai= -simpledowngrade].  Suggest converting the former to look like the lat= ter.

 

4) Section 3.1: "Note that even in UTF-8 mode, = MIME binary content-transfer-encoding is still not permitted."  C= an a reference be added to where that's stipulated?

 

5) Section 6: "The section 2 and 3" and &q= uot;The section 5" need to be changed to just "Sections 2 and 3&q= uot; and "Section 5", respectively.

 

6) Section 7: I'm not a fan of normative language in= Security Considerations. Normative stuff belongs in earlier sections. = ; I suggest changing the MUST

in the second paragraph to "are strongly advise= d to".

 

7) Section 7: "integrity-protect" should b= e "protect the integrity of", and there should be a comma after &= quot;[RFC2595]".

 

8) Section 3.1: "high guesses are better than s= mall ones"; "small" should probably be "low".=

 

-MSK

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FEE4Eexchmbx901corpclo_-- From jyee@afilias.info Tue Apr 24 20:54:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866FD21F85E7 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:54:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.965 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YYASBgmm4G2c for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:54:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7354221F85E6 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ms5.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.111] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SMtJI-0004vB-74 for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:54:32 +0000 Received: from mail-iy0-f178.google.com ([209.85.210.178]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SMtJH-0002Uo-6K for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:54:32 +0000 Received: by iakl21 with SMTP id l21so2092562iak.9 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:54:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=nwAtkAT8LwJP3tQj8/o85Z/xdzdULvX2v1MVr7j/fT0=; b=gWtgamYJDsEkf1yYZYqK0H+zcAWjmYlN1baVsoaBLeUtFmaQrnM7LUXMBDsiNzrv1M 1foUAfuWnRB/8une/Yqndm0JW41PktTO1J4h8qwA1vCIYNB2cB0ta+2kiFaCXqVD7fRD 9RPCgzNVLhZ+R1XXZoIlUczxvGMCq/1xpVsNrWHUdqt7WtD8ccFeKArDWiu+UYa1qEBf 8SWSgMDuQdcHzzN2LDesFKv8Gr4RwzKwtFiTlFgF8rokj/86f/2pHPTVWZOa/s3o/e+h L61VCCUDgiz53NcMIrdkWVaMDV7yBYm4uneTz93W7iVrNpbunyyxtysN30klDVMg+g6J qpFg== Received: by 10.42.68.71 with SMTP id w7mr563925ici.26.1335326071028; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.105] (69-165-128-105.dsl.teksavvy.com. [69.165.128.105]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i7sm18314345igq.11.2012.04.24.20.54.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Joseph Yee In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:54:26 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: "ima@ietf.org WG" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnL5U1JM+3EmiCCtnp+mKkBMxeeVTyVC/33sBc+854WWQCfkwUVIaw1m3YneDqOKabJWZ45 Subject: Re: [EAI] update: Poll for Interim Meeting at May (Re: EAI April 2012 Interim Meeting Time) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:54:34 -0000 Friendly reminder to all to get into poll by April 25 23:59 UTC. Thanks Joseph On 2012-04-15, at 11:15 PM, Joseph Yee wrote: > All,=20 >=20 > I'm sorry that I made a mistake last night not making announcement 2 = weeks in advance. There will be no interim meeting at April 17. I = would like to ask everyone to the poll for the next best time in the = week of May 14 - 18. =20 >=20 > By rules, announcement must be make in advance by 2 weeks, and given = arranging agenda and coordinating with IETF & IESG, the announcement is = bes to make by April 26. =20 >=20 > Please follow the doodle link below for the poll by April 25. >=20 > http://www.doodle.com/4b477tu2ex63n9ys >=20 > Thanks > Joseph >=20 > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:23 PM, John C Klensin = wrote: > Folks, IETF rules for Interim, non-face-to-face, Meetings > require two week's formal notice, so we seem to have missed the > cutoff for doing this on the 17th. Please stand by -- we will > get back to you about a revised plan within the next 24 hours. >=20 > john >=20 >=20 > --On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 18:24 -0400 Joseph Yee > wrote: >=20 > > All, > > > > Based on the doodle poll > > (http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk), we will meet at 8am > > US Eastern Tuesday April 17 (the earliest time where everyone > > is available). The estimation is 90 minutes for the meeting. > > For now, the current agenda is draft discussion of POP3 UTF8 > > (RFC5721bis), IMAP UTF8 (RFC5738bis), both downgrade drafts, > > and any other drafts to be considered. > > > > I will send out detailed agenda again tomorrow, and friendly > > reminder to all editors to send an revision by April 12, so > > that everyone has enough time to review. (And thanks to > > JianKang and others for RFC5721bis revision). > > > > Thanks > > Joseph > > > > > > On 2012-04-06, at 11:15 AM, Joseph Yee wrote: > > > >> A friendly reminder to everyone of the doodle poll for EAI > >> April interim meeting. The poll will close at next Tuesday > >> April 10. And to all editors, please submit your revision by > >> April 12 so all participants have enough time to review for > >> the meeting in following week. For any issues, please > >> contact John and myself. > >> > >> thanks > >> Joseph > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2012-03-18, at 11:46 PM, Joseph Yee wrote: > >> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> Please visit the doodle link below to let us know of your > >>> available time so that we can schedule an interim jabber > >>> based meeting to discuss the core documents (POP, IMAP, and > >>> both downgrades) and any outstanding issue. > >>> > >>> Note, the range of the meeting time is the third week of > >>> April, and given many participant located in either North > >>> American or East Asia, most time were picked at either > >>> before typical work hours or after typical work hours > >>> (unless you are in US west coast), and no weekend (Saturday, > >>> Sunday) in anyone's timezone. If no good time were > >>> available from first round, I will expand the range but it > >>> remains the third week of April for now. Thanks. > >>> > >>> http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Joseph Yee, co-chair of EAI > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IMA mailing list > > IMA@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > IMA mailing list > IMA@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From jyee@afilias.info Wed Apr 25 21:07:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876B421E8026 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:07:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.615 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ba2yqK45VG-2 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AE421E8024 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ms5.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.111] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SNFyy-0005Al-4s for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:07:04 +0000 Received: from mail-iy0-f178.google.com ([209.85.210.178]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SNFyy-0004Tz-4G for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:07:04 +0000 Received: by iakl21 with SMTP id l21so1133166iak.9 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:07:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=UWLN69vuokpnbzzPPe/P/YBN1qArGVQ4Qyqfeije/l0=; b=Fknh16GOMic52NgI0eMtSW4KN2KvdGjcLs/nD9QSZyiU5C76JqSSG5ubCdAH0gfsGM A3ruarkSoqQIvaNG+qTdtkuijMD3cv+6GcSiYF6u1ZQXriMBYEu3jjd147B7qOM7FtHJ dTJ2O2mMKjEnXquMUjyguKWesyAuIE5r3ODArX8y6CcVSoBm0h3cPUmQkUVbTaIhr8Tt 6Kq2enPVx1tuiYxXoKuGoetrPtj3ArKf2TYkXTacnkw9pVevgvTKxvBaR0gF/VdXanMh 7Eq9b4VBFx7LcPeov5/RDwsjHvcTzVfoPEIWmV3VZ3d9+f1anCkJs7z7jtrsfzV3bP3N 7h8Q== Received: by 10.50.181.166 with SMTP id dx6mr12108921igc.61.1335413223884; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.103] (69-165-128-105.dsl.teksavvy.com. [69.165.128.105]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wh8sm4610796igb.11.2012.04.25.21.07.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Joseph Yee In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:07:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <351809B8-D68A-4D3F-9A6C-40A65C8A8878@afilias.info> References: To: "ima@ietf.org WG" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkToPppZwYZhiLK7VGK4dg/JyZxr67YshZg85MPE4D8SVNoh/W0EMxjAObBRkawpcgSQHiw Subject: [EAI] EAI Interim Meeting Time Poll Result(Re: update: Poll for Interim Meeting at May) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:07:06 -0000 All Based on the doodle poll result, the next EAI WG virtual interim meeting = will be via jabber chat (eai@jabber.ietf.org) on Monday, May 14 at 12:00 UTC (7:00 US Central and 20:00 CST) for 2 hours.=20 The agenda will be about the remaining drafts, especially = draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-03, draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-04, = draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-05 and = draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03. Detail meeting and agenda will send = to WG, AD (Pete and Barry) and IESG. http://www.doodle.com/4b477tu2ex63n9ys#table Regards, Joseph On 2012-04-24, at 11:54 PM, Joseph Yee wrote: > Friendly reminder to all to get into poll by April 25 23:59 UTC. >=20 > Thanks > Joseph >=20 > On 2012-04-15, at 11:15 PM, Joseph Yee wrote: >=20 >> All,=20 >>=20 >> I'm sorry that I made a mistake last night not making announcement 2 = weeks in advance. There will be no interim meeting at April 17. I = would like to ask everyone to the poll for the next best time in the = week of May 14 - 18. =20 >>=20 >> By rules, announcement must be make in advance by 2 weeks, and given = arranging agenda and coordinating with IETF & IESG, the announcement is = bes to make by April 26. =20 >>=20 >> Please follow the doodle link below for the poll by April 25. >>=20 >> http://www.doodle.com/4b477tu2ex63n9ys >>=20 >> Thanks >> Joseph >>=20 >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:23 PM, John C Klensin = wrote: >> Folks, IETF rules for Interim, non-face-to-face, Meetings >> require two week's formal notice, so we seem to have missed the >> cutoff for doing this on the 17th. Please stand by -- we will >> get back to you about a revised plan within the next 24 hours. >>=20 >> john >>=20 >>=20 >> --On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 18:24 -0400 Joseph Yee >> wrote: >>=20 >>> All, >>>=20 >>> Based on the doodle poll >>> (http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk), we will meet at 8am >>> US Eastern Tuesday April 17 (the earliest time where everyone >>> is available). The estimation is 90 minutes for the meeting. >>> For now, the current agenda is draft discussion of POP3 UTF8 >>> (RFC5721bis), IMAP UTF8 (RFC5738bis), both downgrade drafts, >>> and any other drafts to be considered. >>>=20 >>> I will send out detailed agenda again tomorrow, and friendly >>> reminder to all editors to send an revision by April 12, so >>> that everyone has enough time to review. (And thanks to >>> JianKang and others for RFC5721bis revision). >>>=20 >>> Thanks >>> Joseph >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On 2012-04-06, at 11:15 AM, Joseph Yee wrote: >>>=20 >>>> A friendly reminder to everyone of the doodle poll for EAI >>>> April interim meeting. The poll will close at next Tuesday >>>> April 10. And to all editors, please submit your revision by >>>> April 12 so all participants have enough time to review for >>>> the meeting in following week. For any issues, please >>>> contact John and myself. >>>>=20 >>>> thanks >>>> Joseph >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On 2012-03-18, at 11:46 PM, Joseph Yee wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> All, >>>>>=20 >>>>> Please visit the doodle link below to let us know of your >>>>> available time so that we can schedule an interim jabber >>>>> based meeting to discuss the core documents (POP, IMAP, and >>>>> both downgrades) and any outstanding issue. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Note, the range of the meeting time is the third week of >>>>> April, and given many participant located in either North >>>>> American or East Asia, most time were picked at either >>>>> before typical work hours or after typical work hours >>>>> (unless you are in US west coast), and no weekend (Saturday, >>>>> Sunday) in anyone's timezone. If no good time were >>>>> available from first round, I will expand the range but it >>>>> remains the third week of April for now. Thanks. >>>>>=20 >>>>> http://www.doodle.com/3stamymgmeht29fk >>>>>=20 >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Joseph Yee, co-chair of EAI >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IMA mailing list >>> IMA@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> IMA mailing list >> IMA@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima >=20 From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri Apr 27 13:36:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5006411E8083; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:36:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YVwYKRXm7c+N; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC96221F86C3; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:36:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IESG Secretary To: IETF Announcement List X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120427203650.29585.45699.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:36:50 -0700 Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: [EAI] EAI WG Virtual Interim Meeting: Monday, May 14, 2012 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:36:51 -0000 The next EAI WG virtual interim meeting will be via jabber chat (eai@jabber.ietf.org) on Monday, May 14 at 12:00 UTC for 2 hours. Local times for 12:00 UTC: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=3DIETF+EAI+WG+Jabb= er+Chat&iso=3D20120514T12&ah=3D2 Draft: agenda, subject to discussion on the mailing list prior to the meeting, is 1 Agenda Bash 2 POP/IMAP Cluster Discussion of the following drafts. A _short_ WG Last Call will be initiated either immediately after the meeting or immediately after new versions can be posted if the latter is necessary: draft-ietf-eai-5738bis-03 (IMAP) draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-04 (POP) draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-05 draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 3 Other drafts Discussion of status and plans for mailing lists and MAILTO. 4 AOB=20 From johnl@iecc.com Sun Apr 29 19:56:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E4821F8592 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:56:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KkDS8ehYW5yz for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9658121F84E4 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 15166 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2012 02:56:03 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 30 Apr 2012 02:56:03 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f9dff42.xn--30v786c.k1204; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=s8+4IlUfg+gY+919fw50GHnqVa7dZj/RpkF/yzk475A=; b=DDVSYg9zTpGLen0qt9whnuHUtzreowM9kt9bQGets2r2P6TfdOJi6JgJt1bnC7eiL5BzH5R5mTBVpdgHwRkhkgsUX9lr/BizdkHyZwDz0yuT49z3AUXfWpLuf/41jxV+g7t0WPeu/+oqw9/BExNa3muAJt/q/uBJbj0ta+q65r4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f9dff42.xn--30v786c.k1204; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=s8+4IlUfg+gY+919fw50GHnqVa7dZj/RpkF/yzk475A=; b=LY/U5vZPcZSu86Eg0e5OhG6w3yNNHtFL5qLrsHbQRLg1/fhCo8+DIcSEl/UzzLNMtJYfqYYjIRJk1W3PpdZSlMWGLoklsNFwmQJ01hm9tzWPirfeIjXWTU3e3GdiXp8MDVqobJbh7FKkndc8rALwUfM0klvZXQKuBqv2vXJXjG4= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 30 Apr 2012 02:55:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: ima@ietf.org Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:56:05 -0000 The goal of this draft is to pare back the downgrade process in IMAP and POP servers to the minimum required to create a message that can be presented to a non-EAI mail client, and more or less looks like the EAI original. It presents a simple set of downgrades that will give the recipient a reasonable idea of what the message said, and will still allow replies to non-EAI addresses in the header, while being a lot less work than prior proposals. My only suggestion is that in section 1, it'd be worth reminding people that since a non-EAI client can't send mail to an EAI address, there are no modifications to an EAI message that would allow a pre-EAI client to interoperate with EAI mail. That means a decision about what to do with downgraded message elements is aesthetic, not technical. R's, John From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Mon Apr 30 01:25:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE6A21F85B5 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:25:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.787, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id htEOVolggk7E for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF06D21F8582 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67983FA0871; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:25:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1335774338-19065-19064/10/1; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:25:38 +0000 Message-Id: <4F9E4C91.50701@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:25:53 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: IMA Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Subject: [EAI] a couple of 5738bis comments X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:25:43 -0000 Hi, it's somewhat unclear to me why this is permitted, supported, meaningful, etc: a login arnt foo b enable utf8=accept c select inbox d uid fetch 1:* body.peek[header.fields (subject from to cc date)] Note that EAI syntax is enabled by command b, but EAI use not enabled by c. Arnt From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Mon Apr 30 05:09:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4DAC21F8621 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:09:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.529 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WOcbvuJGftAi for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3C321F8601 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:09:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1335787796; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=jJk5NKEFA/ErgcJ4YGOubmUTfp2puBQwNsJfy0jrOck=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=EUErF84bfSFTAHpRhp9WI5k/Stt2bf/v4NXbpljGmfv3O4FsHBMgE9IhU5f61iEL6Rr7g7 CPZJGkpG0OL3FHd3QrKLv28i+Q9+S9MJMyXgrLLvpBLFX2TNEbVZJCXjQ65yVE3ehg4Ilt W7XGbO2pQdVNS47m6uhLCHoRlb6c6Fs=; Received: from [172.16.1.29] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:09:56 +0100 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: PIPELINING Message-ID: <4F9E8130.50403@isode.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:10:24 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 To: Arnt Gulbrandsen References: <4F9E4C91.50701@gulbrandsen.priv.no> In-Reply-To: <4F9E4C91.50701@gulbrandsen.priv.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IMA Discussion Subject: Re: [EAI] a couple of 5738bis comments X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:09:58 -0000 On 30/04/2012 09:25, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Hi, > > it's somewhat unclear to me why this is permitted, supported, > meaningful, etc: > > a login arnt foo > b enable utf8=accept > c select inbox > d uid fetch 1:* body.peek[header.fields (subject from to cc date)] > > Note that EAI syntax is enabled by command b, but EAI use not enabled by c. Hi Arnt, I am entirely lacking coffee today, so can you please spell out: 1). what is the problem 2). what change you are proposing to fix it. Thanks, Alexey From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Mon Apr 30 07:38:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE98721F8642 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:38:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.891 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.708, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oPwXHvYk-QrH for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A4121F8657 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13592F8E7C2; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:38:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1335796695-19065-19064/10/4; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:38:15 +0000 Message-Id: <4F9EA3E6.1040205@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:38:30 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ima@ietf.org References: <4F9E4C91.50701@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <4F9E8130.50403@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4F9E8130.50403@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Subject: Re: [EAI] a couple of 5738bis comments X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:38:19 -0000 Alexey answers me: >> b enable utf8=accept >> c select inbox > I am entirely lacking coffee today, so can you please spell out: > 1). what is the problem I see two obviously useful cases. 1. Client wants EAI. 2. Client doesn't. But 5738bis provides three settings. 1. Client wants EAI syntax and messages. 2. Client wants EAI syntax but not EAI messages 3. Client knows nothing about EAI. (The command sequence above provides the middle case.) > 2). what change you are proposing to fix it. I'm not proposing. I'm wondering why the document offers three cases. I'm not saying "b enable utf8=accept" followed by "c select inbox" is pointless, I'm asking what its point is. Arnt From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Mon Apr 30 08:38:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2238021F86E1 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:38:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.965 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tdca0e9xsQ9K for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6122421F86D5 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaaq11 with SMTP id q11so738066eaa.31 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:37:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=XqWAG0VQNG95Z/EYp6sIJQS/NqYLP1Ljd9wflWXHRQs=; b=AJazGmXRJKiuavwbAGqmDd59KebuzPzJ9pkZZY1D/pTC3t8A3aq8Q8XFDl8Jt0iMQu 97jsXWGQBHAphR83SnfHVG1MVt+kQrK9Fo4y+hVTcwYQkBTNC0aib14U4T8TmdZKwp/d pexhEql5/eft4POsLXTxlrar9fHVqAZOpuXMtM8oS/hjnitAVaU1On5fCb77HM7AeVHc tGWvzJoD3NuZKLFCWRtDt2HZfAHMjTfbdPNUC0KM7uZectOdqhYet/3M7HO6d3kNBVkS AU8SoeOorXwxx5VWzJAUTJX2HiEE1bYuGNT6NeVbR7DX102c72D9UKpFvkj35NC7VFPl SSSA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.188.141 with SMTP id a13mr2324102een.56.1335800279529; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:37:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.14.225.2 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:37:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:37:59 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: rrCLX3xUQkfN7AP48reIHBjpx44 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: John Levine Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:38:01 -0000 > It presents a simple set of downgrades that will > give the recipient a reasonable idea of what the message said, and > will still allow replies to non-EAI addresses in the header, while > being a lot less work than prior proposals. Yes, and I think it's very useful for those reasons: 1. give the recipient a reasonable idea of what the message said 2. a lot less work > My only suggestion is that in section 1, it'd be worth reminding > people that since a non-EAI client can't send mail to an EAI address, > there are no modifications to an EAI message that would allow a > pre-EAI client to interoperate with EAI mail. That means a decision > about what to do with downgraded message elements is aesthetic, not > technical. That aside, the reviews that are coming in are focusing on security issues: - What implications do either of the pop/imap downgrade proposals have on client processing of any sorts of signatures? - What implications are there on any Sieve processing in the client? [1] - What possible attacks can take advantage of this sort of thing to fool people during an expected transition period? I'm not sure how we should respond to these. We seem to have consensus that this sort of processing is useful to help users through a transition. My sense is that we don't think the security concerns are serious. Barry [1] While Sieve processing is normally done in the MDA, there are clients that do Sieve processing. From Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Mon Apr 30 08:56:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17EC921F86A3 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zmYA59m3nFTu for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:56:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E14D21F8698 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it (mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it [140.105.2.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3UFujL0040309 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:56:46 +0200 (CEST) X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it q3UFujL0040309 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=vHhwTHZHLZqcAD0eLmaFG20tgtKy3FLe5fQM9ZY4QK7XpD4dHG7rpDJt0xTVosYQ8 JTNyqg/xXIWLQ+i4KH++kB9We35evyOpdP6vz1Ufiei4HZMCzy47swcpsZWOcFIKCBx 16rKHVTTeOMx1LRzP8aOV5uwqLpzC74LsrnWoH4= Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:56:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it To: Barry Leiba In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: John Levine , ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:56:54 -0000 > I'm not sure how we should respond to these. We seem to have > consensus that this sort of processing is useful to help users through > a transition. My sense is that we don't think the security concerns > are serious. well... I'm biased, as I'm one of the reviwers who commented about security issues :-) but... I recently held a security firedrill test: I sent out something whch was clearly a phising message to collect credentials, a message which did break all security mechanisms, signatures, etc... and this message (BTW, a pure ASCII message!) was sent not to end users... it was sent to e-mail administrators, and to local security administrators within my constituency (the Italian Academic and Research Network) at first, and then sent to other research networks around the World... just localized in the local language: - 36% (yes... 1 out of 3) responded submitting credentials (the real ones). I'm not only biased... I'm seriously concerned! :-) all the best! PS: maybe users are less simple-minded than administators... who knows! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Mon Apr 30 09:12:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DC621F8733 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:12:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HEAD=1.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u+7dM2ljTnRM for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A43821F8717 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57477F8E7DC; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1335802366-19065-19064/11/1; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:12:46 +0000 User-Agent: Kaiten Mail In-Reply-To: References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=----K5UNILH90F8ZXTBETSTWBBG18IE9VY From: Arnt Gulbrandsen Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:12:44 +0200 To: Barry Leiba , John Levine Message-Id: <5b8846eb-2f25-48c9-8f50-15c6fc75dab4@email.android.com> Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:12:54 -0000 ------K5UNILH90F8ZXTBETSTWBBG18IE9VY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I believe that the security problems are intractable. For instance, we = could preserve signature verifiability if and only if no eai addresses = are signed or used during verification. I really don't want to write = either code or a spec for such a special case. Put simply: How would you verify a signature without knowing the syntax = used in the sender's address? Arnt ------K5UNILH90F8ZXTBETSTWBBG18IE9VY Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I believe that the security problems are intractable. = For instance, we could preserve signature verifiability if and only if = no eai addresses are signed or used during verification. I really = don't want to write either code or a spec for such a special = case.

Put simply: How would you verify a signature without knowing the syntax = used in the sender's address?

Arnt ------K5UNILH90F8ZXTBETSTWBBG18IE9VY-- From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Mon Apr 30 09:43:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC17121F87EC for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:43:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.953 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id knajYV2v5Zpm for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAFA21F87E7 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6115CF940D2; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:43:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1335804224-19065-19064/10/6; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:43:44 +0000 Message-Id: <4F9EC14F.4070204@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:43:59 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ima@ietf.org References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> <5b8846eb-2f25-48c9-8f50-15c6fc75dab4@email.android.com> In-Reply-To: <5b8846eb-2f25-48c9-8f50-15c6fc75dab4@email.android.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:43:47 -0000 Uh. If lots of EAI messages end up being generated without any EAI addresses, and lots of conventional clients remain in use for a long time, then I'm wrong about the signatures. Happily, in that case server could legally add more fidelity to enable signature verification: There is no MUST NOT in the simpledowngrade draft. Arnt From ned+ima@mrochek.com Mon Apr 30 13:32:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67D9621F8829 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:32:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.278, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0FB9kggfezcX for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABBE21F8828 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OEXJIQHF9S000U5E@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OENEYWYFI80006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:32:31 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+ima@mrochek.com Message-id: <01OEXJINHXB00006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:36:20 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:37:59 -0400" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> To: Barry Leiba Cc: John Levine , ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:32:41 -0000 > > It presents a simple set of downgrades that will > > give the recipient a reasonable idea of what the message said, and > > will still allow replies to non-EAI addresses in the header, while > > being a lot less work than prior proposals. > Yes, and I think it's very useful for those reasons: > 1. give the recipient a reasonable idea of what the message said > 2. a lot less work Whether or not it's a good idea for end users can be argued either way, but my perspective is different: I look at this from a service provider's viewpoint. And from that viewpoint downgrading looks likely to be a massive support call generator. As such, I think it's unlikely that most providers will ever deploy such a mechanism. I think providers are more likely to use an approach where mailboxes are transitioned on user request and once a transition is done that mailbox cannot be accessed by a non-EAI client. This doesn't mean that downgrading is useless - it will be needed if a mailbox is transitioned in error and has to be downgraded to non-EAI. But that case raises far fewer issues than mixed client access does. > > My only suggestion is that in section 1, it'd be worth reminding > > people that since a non-EAI client can't send mail to an EAI address, > > there are no modifications to an EAI message that would allow a > > pre-EAI client to interoperate with EAI mail. That means a decision > > about what to do with downgraded message elements is aesthetic, not > > technical. > That aside, the reviews that are coming in are focusing on security issues: Since my previous rant on this topic appears to have been ignored, I'll again point out that this concern is fundamentally 20 years too late and many trillions of messages short. > - What implications do either of the pop/imap downgrade proposals have > on client processing of any sorts of signatures? OK, if we're really sure we want to explore this rathole, then I'm going to insist that we go all the way to the bottom. DKIM first. DKIM is of course going to fail, but since the focus of DKIM isn't to be an end-to-end mechanism (various attempts to promote it as such notwithstanding), I'd have to say this is not a big concern. Multipart/signed is a different problem. I'll first note that the multipart/signed specification says signed content is constrained to be 7bit (RFC 1847 section 2.1.), so that's an issue for EAI irrespective of any of this downgrade business. So perhaps we need to define an additional container for EAI content that will fit inside a multipart/signed. Application/global? (We could also reuse message/global, but I don't like that because the semantics aren't correct.) Note that multipart/global-signed is NOT an option. There's lots of special-case handling of multipart/signed out there that cannot be easily upgraded. But let's assume that the right thing to do is to remove the restriction on multipart/signed. (I think that's a terrible idea, but let's suppose.) Well, the solution then is to wrap the multipart/signed on the outside if you want to preserve the signature. Either way solving the problem is effectively outside the scope of the downgrading specification. Next up are signature schemes that employ their own private media type. Since such schemes by definition cannot carry objects with message semantics in a standardized way, they aren't going to be affected by either EAI or EAI downgrading. And as for the various signature schemes that are embedded in text parts, they're essentially the same as using a private media type. Yes, the content can end up multiply encoded, but that's already the case and presumably the various agents out there can deal with it. So the bottom line is that if signatures are seen to be an issue, they're an issue with EAI in general, not specifically with downgrading. And if you want to solve it, any real solution is almost certainly going to deal with the downgrading problem. > - What implications are there on any Sieve processing in the client? [1] Since a non-EAI-capable client is never going to have seen or have had to deal with EAI messages, I'm not sure I see a big issue here - and most of the smaller issues that this raises are also created by the use of constructs like message/global, which have to be dealt with no matter what. > - What possible attacks can take advantage of this sort of thing to > fool people during an expected transition period? Wrong question. The correct question is what additional attacks does this make possible given that all email headers are trivially spoofable (which makes it possible to send different versions of the same message to different people while making it look like they got the same thing) and given the existence of multipart/alternative. And it should be up to the complainers to come up with serious examples of this, because otherwise you're in effect demanding proof of a negative, which is bogus. Ned From johnl@taugh.com Mon Apr 30 13:50:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACC021F8711 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:50:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XNK9JkzLHJZV for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E3421F8710 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 14612 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2012 20:50:19 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=3913.4f9efb0b.k1204; bh=iUdtBN/Cgbr/7bizowcaO6Y7mfVlrTLmOadEjjut9Uk=; b=Qo42U9yL3cKYFhojoyV0qhZ870oSjc5XGsr/ozBTZkk9WvhTfcJhZ68MNG+rDva1rWZbw45YusrruY8C3mxKCL2tF7c/b+Gpk9RSa947J7wbRpULnCVtYrz6NLQNv1DUKjbA4v63VYtSZ3CkG81r7xn6zYOkNelRAlN8PfEHEOk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=3913.4f9efb0b.k1204; bh=iUdtBN/Cgbr/7bizowcaO6Y7mfVlrTLmOadEjjut9Uk=; b=cLjOr744p+/kgcv9WA9aKeaHv4CeRrrisIIxmO9PfNPO2+5v4APe0v1AuEFdnETwu4rdSbTfI6kCi1nbjUGTKpn285hSZzLVMeJUr7H+q9LgQ7KzXQNN8FtCEIJ2rjCrt28m0Fqg/ZdgFarrw7mRacyhZiB1cLuI6NpgrxS2C1w= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1); 30 Apr 2012 20:49:57 -0000 Date: 30 Apr 2012 16:50:18 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Ned Freed" In-Reply-To: <01OEXJINHXB00006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> <01OEXJINHXB00006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Barry Leiba , ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:50:22 -0000 > Whether or not it's a good idea for end users can be argued either way, but my > perspective is different: I look at this from a service provider's viewpoint. > And from that viewpoint downgrading looks likely to be a massive support call > generator. As such, I think it's unlikely that most providers will ever deploy > such a mechanism. I think providers are more likely to use an approach where > mailboxes are transitioned on user request and once a transition is done that > mailbox cannot be accessed by a non-EAI client. The issue that I believe caused us to stick our foot into this tarpit is that a system with mixed EAI and non-EAI users is likely to get EAI messages for non-EAI users. None of the options are great, reject them as they come in, pretend they don't exist for POP and IMAP users, or downgrade. Rejecting will lose mail that could be delivered if the user notifies the service to upgrade between the time the message arrives and the next time he reads his mail. Pretending the mail isn't there has correctly been described as a cruel joke. So I think that you can make a reasonable case that downgrade is the least bad of the three, but I also do not want to require or encourage an elaborate transition scheme. The basic answer to any comment along the lines of "this sucks" is "you're right, and the way to unsuck it is to give the user an EAI mail client." Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. From johnl@taugh.com Mon Apr 30 14:43:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC4121E8044 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:43:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8kKims3q2v-e for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A38521E80BD for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 25573 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2012 21:43:11 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=63e4.4f9f076f.k1204; bh=OU6vULfHTaJ9iHuSAFsYMydC6LHL5q3vptZAIyUhfSA=; b=L8B2ORMWR+8x3xGLJ07eMzua2bJHTDtmHnhUIuPbGrHmpl+u4dhYfWqLlUmFqHB08u0p/eUkXMYC0MoA1DWN4WD/Qk0ieYOOgNCJYK5hZySagPa0iLT8zz3GKbnFx0KlhexlALuadAosDbmFA7WJZyCuOh/fwjTWbfIxFVG5XUw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=63e4.4f9f076f.k1204; bh=OU6vULfHTaJ9iHuSAFsYMydC6LHL5q3vptZAIyUhfSA=; b=hE8S6uDQCR50t7vJrO14ih+aHrdPKKHg6aHVpYALH7woauq5XToTAEbPEAMUG3D7FtdBToH04RdszMq0EGU84FE7P3D7RkBiPPX//iyQwovrN458Qgym2MquPEfkkUG4TckmDle3ncrURKhd8wYos2mHy3NWkfmtYjX4IULleSM= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1); 30 Apr 2012 21:42:48 -0000 Date: 30 Apr 2012 17:43:09 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Barry Leiba" In-Reply-To: References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:43:14 -0000 > That aside, the reviews that are coming in are focusing on security issues: > - What implications do either of the pop/imap downgrade proposals have > on client processing of any sorts of signatures? It probably won't work. Users who care should find an EAI mail client. > - What implications are there on any Sieve processing in the client? It probably won't work. Users who care should find an EAI mail client. > - What possible attacks can take advantage of this sort of thing to > fool people during an expected transition period? Given the range of technically trivial attacks, e.g., Claudio's simple phish which fooled 1/3 of the admins he sent it to, why would anyone waste their time on something specific to the 0.1% of people who are reading downgraded EAI messages? Users who care shound find an EAI mail client. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. From ned+ima@mrochek.com Mon Apr 30 14:54:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB58321E80C9 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:54:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.938 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.938 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.661, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t-lgkjJwl+F6 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 341FF21E80C3 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OEXMELQM8G000UC8@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OENEYWYFI80006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:54:40 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+ima@mrochek.com Message-id: <01OEXMEI7MLK0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:50:28 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:50:18 -0400" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> <01OEXJINHXB00006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> To: John R Levine Cc: Barry Leiba , Ned Freed , ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:54:53 -0000 > > Whether or not it's a good idea for end users can be argued either way, but my > > perspective is different: I look at this from a service provider's viewpoint. > > And from that viewpoint downgrading looks likely to be a massive support call > > generator. As such, I think it's unlikely that most providers will ever deploy > > such a mechanism. I think providers are more likely to use an approach where > > mailboxes are transitioned on user request and once a transition is done that > > mailbox cannot be accessed by a non-EAI client. > The issue that I believe caused us to stick our foot into this tarpit is > that a system with mixed EAI and non-EAI users is likely to get EAI > messages for non-EAI users. None of the options are great, reject them as > they come in, pretend they don't exist for POP and IMAP users, or > downgrade. Rejecting will lose mail that could be delivered if the user > notifies the service to upgrade between the time the message arrives and > the next time he reads his mail. Pretending the mail isn't there has > correctly been described as a cruel joke. > So I think that you can make a reasonable case that downgrade is the least > bad of the three, but I also do not want to require or encourage an > elaborate transition scheme. Again, it depends on your perspective. "Least bad" for the user is often not the same as "least bad" for the service provider. And the reality is service providers tend rank lower costs above user convenience. > The basic answer to any comment along the lines of "this sucks" is "you're > right, and the way to unsuck it is to give the user an EAI mail client." Agreed. And what this means in the service provider space is that they'll have an EAI-capable webmail solution before they would even consider offering EAI an EAI-capable mail store. But if anything that moves things away from downgrading, because their response to user complaints about the mailbox being inaccessible is going to be, "Why not use our webmail?". Ned From johnl@taugh.com Mon Apr 30 15:03:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FF121E80CB for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:03:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LLnbuUl4oCWR for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A31121E80A8 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 30061 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2012 22:03:12 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=756c.4f9f0c20.k1204; bh=Ho0h1aOjbuECtYyj5mVkaADOkWZOntc8S/yoPuLiECQ=; b=UaDCu7H90crO1PeS/q1HIqo0Ll0eNUO81wh2O+re23Piq67onzpg7CAK9lkY9JibR8PRpQR5o6K8w864lEE3pew4LL4qpp0BEeLaci1SPNwm4GT8ISMh0qPp6UqA7c1++cMaHw+Mcd4EO8Q7DnYqQvrouhb4xYp/VUlJgNz4EaU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=756c.4f9f0c20.k1204; bh=Ho0h1aOjbuECtYyj5mVkaADOkWZOntc8S/yoPuLiECQ=; b=I15zTYEz1cTrG/fONqSWoWgBVq7LGrjahrqvi6kSPaBEOuNHqGbkLfU1d5LzVsUvq3VlITKYz6DE9aS/IGi8nA6B2zq7sw7id0dkToCABZBZ57Srpt4vRe9+DaAxDPFK7c/LbwDq1sO9m82zJLZC/o1GHl8k9mjqBN406lxDMt4= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1); 30 Apr 2012 22:02:50 -0000 Date: 30 Apr 2012 18:03:11 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Ned Freed" In-Reply-To: <01OEXMEI7MLK0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> <01OEXJINHXB00006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <01OEXMEI7MLK0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:03:15 -0000 > Again, it depends on your perspective. "Least bad" for the user is often not > the same as "least bad" for the service provider. And the reality is service > providers tend rank lower costs above user convenience. Depends on the service provider. Random giant mail host, sure. University IT department who have to do whatever the faculty wants, no matter how ill-informed, maybe not. I agree that a lot of places will do what you said, and roll out an entire EAI product at once, but if you offer POP and IMAP to people who aren't your employees, people will use whatever crud MUAs they want. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. From ned+ima@mrochek.com Mon Apr 30 15:06:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F074821F867A for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:06:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.158 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.158 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.441, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vWi5q14GHjwX for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C48621F8672 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OEXMTITSB4000S2Y@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:06:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OENEYWYFI80006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:06:43 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+ima@mrochek.com Message-id: <01OEXMTFWYEQ0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:59:39 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:56:45 +0200 (CEST)" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format=flowed References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> To: Claudio Allocchio Cc: Barry Leiba , John Levine , ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:06:56 -0000 > > I'm not sure how we should respond to these. We seem to have > > consensus that this sort of processing is useful to help users through > > a transition. My sense is that we don't think the security concerns > > are serious. > well... I'm biased, as I'm one of the reviwers who commented about > security issues :-) > but... I recently held a security firedrill test: I sent out something > whch was clearly a phising message to collect credentials, a message which > did break all security mechanisms, signatures, etc... and this message > (BTW, a pure ASCII message!) was sent not to end users... it was sent to > e-mail administrators, and to local security administrators within my > constituency (the Italian Academic and Research Network) at first, and > then sent to other research networks around the World... just localized in > the local language: > - 36% (yes... 1 out of 3) responded submitting credentials (the real > ones). AFAICT this shows that signatures either aren't being validated or that the results of those validations are being ignored in a significant number of cases. Either way the implications for EAI downgrading are ... what, exactly? If signatures really don't matter, why aren't the folks concerned about security focusing on that issue, instead of worrying about EAI downgrading, which in the context of email signatures is demonstrably a nonissue? Ned From Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Mon Apr 30 15:26:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C1421F86D3 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:26:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CXsBDJF9qabp for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB7721F86C4 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it (mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it [140.105.201.3] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3UMQA33011101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 1 May 2012 00:26:10 +0200 (CEST) X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it q3UMQA33011101 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=kDAPv1C9aV2CITyMzqAEafjCE8g9+/rAaxxgKlnQfZs+WiIkTLRvRCYLEYiXB2IcE OndcTMOqDaOte4mr7mcPNwXZGjopOjwmCYJ7e54nAiuGg4Sb0kMUF12RwFuSs8piicq i0m4ZNDZ99nLIOlD1q8D6fRoimD3z/B8R5egFgY= Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 00:26:09 +0200 (CEST) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it To: Ned Freed In-Reply-To: <01OEXMTFWYEQ0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> Message-ID: References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> <01OEXMTFWYEQ0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Barry Leiba , John Levine , ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:26:54 -0000 On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Ned Freed wrote: >> - 36% (yes... 1 out of 3) responded submitting credentials (the real >> ones). > > AFAICT this shows that signatures either aren't being validated or that the > results of those validations are being ignored in a significant number of > cases. likely both of the above. And people just still do not care, or just have a wrongly configured MUA and security system, and that's why they do not care (bad user experience). > Either way the implications for EAI downgrading are ... what, exactly? If > signatures really don't matter, why aren't the folks concerned about security > focusing on that issue, I guess they (we) are focusing on this! The above IS the real problem, and it has nothing specific with EAI. > instead of worrying about EAI downgrading, which in the context of email > signatures is demonstrably a nonissue? Indeed my comments about both the "downgrading" documents are not about worries generated by the fact that EAI downgrading breaks security (this is a non issue, or a minimal issue compared to the abov general problem), but about the way that the "Security Considerations" sections are written. IMHO these sections should describe correctly (and clearly) the scenarios which can happen when a specification is implemented. E.g. declare clearly the potential problems, even if they happen in 0.1% of cases. If this is done, then I'm ok with the documents :-) > > Ned > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca From ted.ietf@gmail.com Mon Apr 30 15:57:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FDBE21F87EC for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:57:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HtOdl-HG8q5P for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8ACF21F87EA for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so2846283vbb.31 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:57:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=vN3q9WC9WBV2UbqAorU9DzL1QnroAMu5Uosxw2NMZOg=; b=RaUx3NOj97nrXN+RIwsxYFaBMdwnxCMqWba5plZ0UqYCSglEvFNo3E4SjF9BJSrC4X XLQYScou3+VrYE22e53dV0TdUsZZ8Q7Hm8DAib3E9nMQ78aapMq2YQZ38Bmu9COLXp3j 2E5LvBqOMOLvR46gMTYzIqQsDK4wTdHx/xR4aKNImWTxHuIJaCzGJ1sH/t0uShfcUVW+ WRWGqicJ2XYuEZ3jaK6+4ACOESS0geHlaPfR2UTpiiWDTVdnu/9UYrG9aKUILegIyWcp jM7AoUTMb7mAAn70ZUJ4R9OlUUBhNgrVRBydFGJBapO3PweOGf+wuklTEfLFQsO3FZ+y 3C6w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.20.228 with SMTP id q4mr4259299vde.56.1335826651381; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.162.99 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:57:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> <01OEXMTFWYEQ0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:57:31 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ted Hardie To: Claudio Allocchio Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: John Levine , Barry Leiba , Ned Freed , ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:57:32 -0000 On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Claudio Allocchio wrote: >> Either way the implications for EAI downgrading are ... what, exactly? If >> signatures really don't matter, why aren't the folks concerned about >> security >> focusing on that issue, > > > I guess they (we) are focusing on this! The above IS the real problem, and > it has nothing specific with EAI. For what it is worth, I still believe the signature issue is a small part of a more general issue: how do I manage user expectation of what a message should look like so that it is considered valid? As a user, I have certain assumptions about what I see when I get mail via specific MUAs (e.g. a web client, a desktop client, etc.). If I get a few messages that undergo downgrade (because my friends with non-ASCII names start using their real names in addresses or domain names or as targets of files like _Friend_Name_Resume.pdf), that may not push me to upgrade all MUAs that can reach a specific mail store. But I get used to seeing a bit of junk as a result, and I get used to a few things being missing that used to be there. Then I start getting messages from other folks that has a bit more junk in it, but it looks like the original junk. How can I tell that this junk is as benign as the other junk? How about if it is missing more than the original crop missed, but otherwise looks similar? How can I tell whether what's missing is the result of downgrade, elision at the source, or something else? How can a naive user? The signature piece is a piece of this (how do I react when something tells me the signature is "broken"), but just a tiny piece of the overall assessment of validity (or "normalcy", maybe?). If people didn't make security judgements based on perceived "validity", this would be a straight usability issue. But they do, and downgrading (especially when it elides data as freely as this proposal) makes it harder. It may be a necessary evil for a transitional period, but I think it should be marked as such prominently--that's why I suggested it stay off the standards track. As I said, though, I will not fall on my sword if I'm in the rough on this: no appeals or even overly loud gnashing of teeth will come from my corner. And to reiterate the other point I made: I feel the same way about pretty much all the downgrade approaches. Whether we are trying to route around traditional in-path servers or UAs, it just does not work well enough to be worth it. My two cents as an individual, regards, Ted From johnl@taugh.com Mon Apr 30 16:04:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFDF21F86B9 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:04:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xJAYnp6yySpV for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55EAD21F86BA for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 40093 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2012 23:04:22 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=9c9c.4f9f1a76.k1204; bh=GWELlCKeJeLM9nY8Mn9sNR8sFV3EswZqX0rgSZW38do=; b=FohnKC9wHPi/mRCdcvd/AFoyJ0zFlZQEeb51WhrT36g7YNdnwUCZGBBVCKRtLQ7TYCoZafmu0Wk4LEX4TYw8UyUMGxDLXQrruNqEEkO0SQuKpi7HyOIi9AKhCDeWY4GtKcehmH4ZhpetcO/dTtGsribAsF5YQ9SO/BGGUiVmsjM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=9c9c.4f9f1a76.k1204; bh=GWELlCKeJeLM9nY8Mn9sNR8sFV3EswZqX0rgSZW38do=; b=M0zJeWOQgQXnNktB+4h7P47R0LbgLfJdobbwCrFc6ZF+Lnc6t6IKWskoju3EW+/NPl7+WSY0Pqj1bCwtoze7bN/giAyG7lVkBWj2QtckKjOZ+sNFYgfCOfiu13oyILjzjWuHaXfct8NAeNKbBqGHq372SVoT6AcyOveQICyh1fg= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1); 30 Apr 2012 23:04:00 -0000 Date: 30 Apr 2012 19:04:20 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Ted Hardie" In-Reply-To: References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> <01OEXMTFWYEQ0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:04:24 -0000 > For what it is worth, I still believe the signature issue is a small > part of a more general issue: how do I manage user expectation of what a > message should look like so that it is considered valid? I entirely agree. At some point we (for a very general construction of we) will have to figure out how to show messages in a way that gets the message through that this message is real, but it's a very hard problem. It certainly has nothing to do with EAI. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. From ned+ima@mrochek.com Mon Apr 30 23:16:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EFE21F8737 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:16:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.268 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.331, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iLZsWw4iyld4 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 735A521F8736 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OEY3WRSLK0000TZN@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OENEYWYFI80006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:16:30 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+ima@mrochek.com Message-id: <01OEY3WPDPJI0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:56:21 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 01 May 2012 00:26:09 +0200 (CEST)" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format=flowed References: <20120430025540.68111.qmail@joyce.lan> <01OEXMTFWYEQ0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> To: Claudio Allocchio Cc: John Levine , Barry Leiba , Ned Freed , ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Review of draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-03 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 06:16:40 -0000 > Indeed my comments about both the "downgrading" documents are not about > worries generated by the fact that EAI downgrading breaks security (this > is a non issue, or a minimal issue compared to the abov general problem), > but about the way that the "Security Considerations" sections are written. > IMHO these sections should describe correctly (and clearly) the scenarios > which can happen when a specification is implemented. E.g. declare clearly > the potential problems, even if they happen in 0.1% of cases. > If this is done, then I'm ok with the documents :-) I'm sorry, but the point you're making here completely eludes me. Barry asked for information to help him respond regarding the effects of downgrading on three specific things: (1) Signatures, (2) Sieve, and (3) Additional attacks facilitated by downgrading. I responded with an analysis that basically said the first two are demonstrably nonissues and the third is badly posed. You then responded with a note that essentially said signatures seem to be fairly worthless in practice. And now you appear to be saying that the real problem is the security considerations section lacks information about certain scenarios of concern, but I have no idea what these scenarios are. In any case, assuming these scenarios involve some sort of trickery in regards to what headers are or aren't displayed by different clients, I'll fall back to my original point that given the ease with which email headers can be forged, coupled with the uncertainty as to what client a given user might use, does downgrading really change the the attack surface in any significant way? I rather think it does not. Now, I suppose you can argue that we should describe what amount to tiny twigs on the attack tree even when there are enormous branches that are far more accessible, but I'm going to have to disagree. The problem with devoting time to what are effectively nonissues is that people waste their time reading that verbiage when there are far more important things for them to be worrying about. But I freely admit I may be entirely incorrect about all this because I really have no idea what scenarios are that you're concerned about. Ned