<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On 27 February 2015 at 08:08, Ladar Levison <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ladar@lavabitllc.com" target="_blank">ladar@lavabitllc.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></span><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><font face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:12pt">2. The current
RFCs dictate that domain names are handled case insensitively,
while mailbox names (what goes in front of the @ symbol),
should be considered case sensitive. This behavior stems from
the fact that most early email systems ran atop Unix, which
has a case sensitive file system. Thus a capital letter in the
mailbox would result in the email server saving a message in a
different file. These days email systems generally operate
case insensitively on mailbox names because of the obvious
implications associated with allowing email addresses which
are almost identical. The question is: <b><i>should DIME
mandate mailbox names be compared case insensitively?</i></b>
Keep in mind that if names are considered case sensitive, a
capitalized letter could result in a server returning a
different signet (with different encryption keys)!</span></font></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>How would this work for languages like Arabic or Chinese, which have no notion of upper and lower case?</div><span class=""><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><font face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<font face="Calibri"> </font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><font face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<font face="Calibri"> </font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><font face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:12pt">3. Somewhat
related to the previous question, <b><i>should support for
international domain names and mailboxes (using UTF-8) be
mandatory?</i></b> Or should UTF-8 address support be
optional? Systems without support for UTF-8 addresses would be
forced to use the ASCII encoding scheme defined in the current
email RFCs. Sadly, I am not an expert on internationalization,
and the prospect of normalizing UTF-8 mailboxes and domains
for comparison operations could be complicated, error prone,
and a potential source for security problems. Do the benefits
outweigh the drawbacks? (See RFCs 5890 and 6530 for a
discussion of international mailboxes and domain names.)</span></font></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Yes, it's about time.</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>OpenPGP: <a href="https://hasan.d8u.us/gpg.key" target="_blank">https://hasan.d8u.us/gpg.key</a></div>Sent from my mobile device<br>Envoyé de mon portable</div></div>
</div></div>