[UA-discuss] interesting to note about emoji in mailbox name.

[Asmus Freytag (c)]

On 4/11/2019 1:46 PM, Mark Svancarek (CELA) wrote:
>
> /A more restricted prohibition might give a better balance: insist 
> that all emoji in an email name are treated as ignorable. That way, 
> people can add them, as long as the remainder of the name contains a 
> string of unique code points.  You would be able to have I//❤NYC, but 
> not if someone else has INYC./
>
> *Asmus*, this is a great idea.  I don’t know what role UASG might have 
> in promoting it, but I am personally game to try.
>
> Also, more people should use the word “churlish”.
>

Indeed !

A./

> /marksv
>
> *From:*UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Asmus 
> Freytag
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:15
> *To:* ua-discuss at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [UA-discuss] interesting to note about emoji in mailbox 
> name.
>
> On 4/11/2019 11:39 AM, Mark Svancarek (CELA) via UA-discuss wrote:
>
>     Pedantically, I think Ajay is asking about mailbox names.  UASG
>     and SSAC have historically weighed in against emojis in domain
>     names.  But I think we have neglected to indicate that we oppose
>     them in mailbox names as well.  There is no equivalent of IDNA for
>     mailbox names, so we could be more explicit about our opposition.
>
> Mark,
>
> I definitely agree.
>
> If we run into violent opposition, because many users decide to view 
> that restriction as churlish, there's a possible fallback:
>
> E-mail names, unlike domain names, already aren't treated as "exact 
> match"; for example certain punctuation is ignored.
>
> A more restricted prohibition might give a better balance: insist that 
> all emoji in an email name are treated as ignorable. That way, people 
> can add them, as long as the remainder of the name contains a string 
> of unique code points.
>
> You would be able to have I❤NYC, but not if someone else has INYC.
>
> This slightly more relaxed stance may be a useful fallback if we find 
> that we cannot get traction with a full prohibition.
>
> A./
>
> PS: this technique doesn't work as well with domain names as it would 
> have to be implemented by registering all these variants, thus lead to 
> combinatorial explosion.
>
>     *From:* UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org>
>     <mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Mark W. Datysgeld
>     *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2019 07:09
>     *To:* ua-discuss at icann.org <mailto:ua-discuss at icann.org>; Lars
>     Steffen <lars.steffen at eco.de> <mailto:lars.steffen at eco.de>; Dr
>     Ajay Data <ajay at data.in> <mailto:ajay at data.in>; universal access
>     <ua-discuss at icann.org> <mailto:ua-discuss at icann.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [UA-discuss] interesting to note about emoji in
>     mailbox name.
>
>     While valid, the SSAC basically concluded we should not be using
>     them:
>     https://features.icann.org/ssac-advisory-use-emoji-domain-name
>     <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffeatures.icann.org%2Fssac-advisory-use-emoji-domain-name&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7C3fa3902664544098b0a908d6beb20216%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636906069091779454&sdata=5F69RLHWd9EX2mMvosxjyZ7NtSa7yj6z3r5xtkj5Va4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>     So it would be very hard at the moment to push for any kind of
>     change in spam filters. There is ongoing discussion in terms of
>     acceptable characters and such, but that seems to be going nowhere
>     fast.
>     -- 
>     Mark W. Datysgeld from Governance Primer [www.markwd.website
>     <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markwd.website&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7C3fa3902664544098b0a908d6beb20216%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636906069091779454&sdata=%2F98av%2B4q3FSsknSNm1pxdLzLq%2FgT6vsTqX%2FyDFWJiy0%3D&reserved=0>]
>     Representing businesses in IG together with AR-TARC and ABES
>
>     On April 11, 2019 8:48:48 AM GMT-03:00, Lars Steffen
>     <lars.steffen at eco.de <mailto:lars.steffen at eco.de>> wrote:
>
>         May I quote from the 2 March 2018:
>
>         ...what we agreed to is that emojis are not part of the
>         current standard for IDN/DNS. As such it is out of scope for UASG.
>
>         Lars
>
>         *Von: *UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org
>         <mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> im Auftrag von Dr Ajay
>         Data <ajay at data.in <mailto:ajay at data.in>>
>         *Datum: *Donnerstag, 11. April 2019 um 09:10
>         *An: *universal access <ua-discuss at icann.org
>         <mailto:ua-discuss at icann.org>>
>         *Betreff: *[UA-discuss] interesting to note about emoji in
>         mailbox name.
>
>             Some Interesting things to note:
>
>             I am testing with Two working Valid Email Address with
>             heart shape..
>             ❤@data.in and ♥@data.in
>
>             ( ❤- xn--qei    and ♥- xn--g6h )
>
>             When I receive email from the above ID`s, In mobile
>             devices these above hearts are shown in different red shades.
>
>         However If I send email to Gmail / Outlook, they consider this
>         as  Spam.  Not only spam, Gmail displays the following warning. -
>
>         *This message seems dangerous*
>
>         The sender’s email address uses abnormal characters, which
>         might be used to spoof real addresses. Avoid clicking links,
>         downloading attachments, or replying to this message.
>
>         Probably, we need to discuss this too and have our views
>         around it.
>
>         *Dr. Ajay Data**
>         *Founder & CEO
>
>
>         [XGENFOOTER]
>
>         [-XGENFOOTER]
>
>
>         Do not Remove:
>         [HID]20190411124031186[-HID]
>
>         Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.Das Bild wurde vom
>         Absender entfernt.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20190411/3841531b/attachment.html>