On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 09:40:27PM +0200, Platonides wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
I misunderstood you to be talking about RHSs. LHSs *must* be treated as case-sensitive, regardless how many providers don't actually do it that way.
Without any other data, they must. That's why i'm proposing it as a list of providers, rather than on a global basis. If we positively know that they're internaly case-insensitive, and treating them as such will make life easier for our users. Why not do it?
Because you *can't* 'positively' know for any other time but right now... and more importantly, because as you quote, conveniently:
RFC 821 (August 1982), section 2; Commands and replies are not case sensitive. That is, a command or reply word may be upper case, lower case, or any mixture of upper and lower case. Note that this is not true of mailbox user names. For some hosts the user name is case sensitive, and SMTP implementations must take case to preserve the case of user names as they appear in mailbox arguments. Host names are not case sensitive.
the RFC says you have to. More specifically, it defines the semantics of an Internet email address, and that's the item you're ... oh.
You're talking about for matching purposes. I'm sorry; I'm kind of slow today.
I understand both sides of this argument, and while the spec really says that you can't do it that way, any administrator who assigns root and Root to 2 different mailboxes should be boiled in oil, hung, shot, drawn and quartered, and the pieces arrested.
So yeah, why not? :-)
Cheers, -- jra