[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [idn] quick & dirty (but not too dirty) homograph defense

To: tedd <tedd@sperling.com>
Subject: Re: [idn] quick & dirty (but not too dirty) homograph defense
From: "Martin v. Löwis" <martin@v.loewis.de>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:34:43 +0100
Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org, Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org>
In-reply-to: <p06210205be3e762b5c0a@[192.168.0.101]>
References: <200502201529.j1KFTKdU091474@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl> <4218BC15.8060208@vanderpoel.org> <p06210205be3e762b5c0a@[192.168.0.101]>
User-agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050116)

tedd wrote:

As I understand it, this would only require a change in mapping. That should solve at least one "glyph look-alike" problem -- shouldn't it?


Anything involving changes in the way IDNA works (through changing
mappings, or restricting characters further on the client side) is
not a solution, whatever the problem. Any such change will take ten
years or more to implement.

Regards,
Martin

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [idn] quick & dirty (but not too dirty) homograph defense
  - From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>

References:
- Re: [idn] quick & dirty (but not too dirty) homograph defense
  - From: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>
- Re: [idn] quick & dirty (but not too dirty) homograph defense
  - From: Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org>
- Re: [idn] quick & dirty (but not too dirty) homograph defense
  - From: tedd <tedd@sperling.com>

Prev by Date: [idn] what might happen
Next by Date: Re: [idn] quick & dirty (but not too dirty) homograph defense
Previous by thread: [idn] what might happen
Next by thread: Re: [idn] quick & dirty (but not too dirty) homograph defense
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread