…nology Many important terms used in this document are defined in [ RFC7564 ], [ RFC5890 ], [ RFC6120 ], [ RFC6365 ], and [ Unicode ]. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL…

…rminology Many important terms used in this document are defined in [RFC7564], [RFC5890], [RFC6120], [RFC6365], and [Unicode]. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in th…

…minology Many important terms used in this document are defined in [ RFC7564 ], RFC5890 ], [ RFC6120 ], [ RFC6365 ], and [ Unicode ]. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL…

…minology Many important terms used in this document are defined in [ RFC7564 ], RFC5890 ], [ RFC6120 ], [ RFC6365 ], and [ Unicode ]. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL…

…under the same names) in RFC 5234 [ RFC5234 ], RFC 5321 [ RFC5321 ], RFC 5890 [ RFC5890 ], or RFC 6532 [ RFC6532 ]. 1.2 . Changes Made to Other Specifications This specification extends some syntax rules defined in RFC 5321 and permits internationalized email addresses in the env…

…ned (under the same names) in RFC 5234 [RFC5234], RFC 5321 [RFC5321], RFC 5890 [RFC5890], or RFC 6532 [RFC6532]. 1.2. Changes Made to Other Specifications This specification extends some syntax rules defined in RFC 5321 and permits internationalized email addresses in the envelop…

…ined (under the same names) in RFC 5234 RFC5234 ], RFC 5321 RFC5321 ], RFC 5890 RFC5890 ], or RFC 6532 RFC6532 ]. 1.2 . Changes Made to Other Specifications This specification extends some syntax rules defined in RFC 5321 and permits internationalized email addresses in the envel…

…ing subsections. This processing model assumes that the UA implements IDNA2008 [RFC5890], or possibly IDNA2003 [RFC3490], as noted in Section 13 ("Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Dependency and Migration"). It also assumes that all domain names manipulated…

…wing subsections. This processing model assumes that the UA implements IDNA2008 RFC5890 ], or possibly IDNA2003 [ RFC3490 ], as noted in Section 13 ("Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Dependency and Migration"). It also assumes that all domain names manipula…

…wing subsections. This processing model assumes that the UA implements IDNA2008 RFC5890 ], or possibly IDNA2003 [ RFC3490 ], as noted in Section 13 ("Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Dependency and Migration"). It also assumes that all domain names manipula…

…wing subsections. This processing model assumes that the UA implements IDNA2008 RFC5890 ], or possibly IDNA2003 [ RFC3490 ], as noted in Section 13 ("Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Dependency and Migration"). It also assumes that all domain names manipula…

…wing subsections. This processing model assumes that the UA implements IDNA2008 RFC5890 ], or possibly IDNA2003 [ RFC3490 ], as noted in Section 13 ("Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Dependency and Migration"). It also assumes that all domain names manipula…

…rsion 3.2). Therefore, the newer IDNA specifications, here called "IDNA2008" ([ RFC5890 ], [ RFC5891 ], [ RFC5892 ], [ RFC5893 ], [ RFC5894 ]), no longer use Stringprep and Nameprep. This migration away from Stringprep for IDNs prompted other "customers" of Stringprep to consider…

…il addresses. The domain part of email addresses is already internationalized [ RFC5890 ], while the local part is not. Without the extensions specified in this document, the mailbox name is restricted to a subset of 7-bit ASCII [ RFC5321 ]. Though MIME RFC2045 ] enables the tran…

…name that does not comply with domain name rules (see RFC1034 ], [ RFC1035 ], [ RFC5890 ] et. seq.). [[TODO: justify. Basically experiments have borne out that many mail systems will not accept user@[3.3.3.3] as a RCPT TO. Technically it is valid per RFC 5321 , but practically an…