On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:36:18PM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Yes. Now, if check_sender_access contains UTF8, then what you paste to
> whitelist an address is:
>
> ??????@??????.in ACCEPT
>
> whereas if the domain uses a-labels, you need to use
>
> ??????@xn--p1b6ci4b4b3a.in ACCEPT
Much more likely the table lookup will be for just the domain, and
in scripts I can read I can tell whether two entries are different,
quickly find the one I am looking for, or match an entry in a log
file to an entry in the table...
Forcing Postfix access tables to contain tower-of-babel writing is
not an answer.
> The first line is readable to people who understand hindi and has to be cut
> and pasted by the rest of us. The second is halfway readable to people who
> understand hindi, and has to be cut and pasted by the rest of us.
>
> >I can read/write a-labels.
>
> Personally I've never had much luck reading or typing things like
> xn--p1b6ci4b4b3a, and if I'm going to cut and paste I might as well paste
I've just typed one by looking at the line above:
xn--p1b6ci4b4b3a
no cut/paste, scout's honour. Not all operations on domains are
write-only. I have to be able to later read the table files,
process them with various tools, ...
> >Indeed domain names in EAI SMTP (and in message headers) should
> >have been mandated to be a-labels with display conversion to UTF-8
> >left to MUAs.
>
> If you don't mind, I'd rather not rehash that discussion. It was long and
> tedious the first time, and I do not want to repeat it. I'll follow the RFC
> as the finally ended up, not do what I thought was best. Perhaps e.g. 6532
> section 3.2 contains the wrong decision about how to generate Received
> fields, but the decision is clear and I really, really do not want to repeat
> the discussion. Sorry.
That's fine, I don't want to rehash it either, but Postfix interfaces
need to be usable by Postfix users. So Postfix will have to make up
for deficits in the RFCs.
--
Viktor.
