{
    "api_version": "1",
    "kind": "dse_post",
    "self": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/api/v1/posts/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/",
    "item": {
        "id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/",
        "slug": "negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses",
        "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/",
        "alternate_urls": {
            "markdown": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses.md",
            "json": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/api/v1/posts/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/"
        },
        "title": "Negotiate SMTPUTF8 before transporting internationalized addresses",
        "summary": "Use RFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email to review this narrow operational decision without extending the source beyond its stated scope.",
        "format": {
            "slug": "explainer",
            "name": "Explainer"
        },
        "priority": {
            "slug": "advisory",
            "name": "Advisory"
        },
        "featured": false,
        "image": {
            "theme": "network-infrastructure",
            "label": "Networks & infrastructure",
            "alt": "Resilient network core with engineered blue and gold data paths.",
            "card_url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-card.webp?v=1.8.20",
            "hero_url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-hero.webp?v=1.8.20",
            "social_url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-social-v2.jpg?v=1.8.20",
            "width": 2400,
            "height": 1350
        },
        "topics": [
            {
                "slug": "cybersecurity",
                "name": "Cybersecurity",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/topic/cybersecurity/"
            },
            {
                "slug": "networks-infrastructure",
                "name": "Networks & Infrastructure",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/topic/networks-infrastructure/"
            }
        ],
        "author": {
            "name": "DSE Security Editorial Team",
            "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#editorial-team",
            "type": "Organization"
        },
        "publisher": {
            "name": "Detection Systems & Engineering",
            "url": "https://dsesecurity.com/"
        },
        "published_at": "2026-08-27T12:16:58+00:00",
        "modified_at": "2026-08-27T12:36:15+00:00",
        "reviewed_on": "2026-08-26",
        "reading_minutes": 3,
        "word_count": 594,
        "potentially_affected": "Teams, systems, services, or facilities within the stated scope of RFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email",
        "dse_recommendation": "Compare the observed state with the cited official source, document applicability and exceptions, and test any approved change with rollback safeguards.",
        "primary_source": {
            "name": "RFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email",
            "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6531.html",
            "published_on": null,
            "authority": "www.rfc-editor.org"
        },
        "publishing_principles": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/dse-updates-editorial-methodology/",
        "usage_info": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/usage/",
        "copyright_notice": "Copyright © 2026 Detection Systems & Engineering. All rights reserved.",
        "content_html": "<p>Frame this document as a source-led configuration and assurance check: Negotiate SMTPUTF8 before transporting internationalized addresses. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.</p>\n<h2>Source fact:</h2>\n<p>The official <a href=\"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6531.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">RFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email</a> from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>An SMTP server advertising SMTPUTF8 accepts UTF-8 wherever the SMTP mailbox grammar permits a mailbox value. The research record locates this support at <strong>Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension)</strong>.</li>\n<li>A client may send internationalized mailbox names and UTF-8 headers only after the server advertises SMTPUTF8 in its EHLO response. The research record locates this support at <strong>Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), negotiation rule</strong>.</li>\n<li>If the next SMTP server lacks SMTPUTF8, the client must not transmit the internationalized message and instead transforms, rejects, requeues, or tries another MX as permitted. The research record locates this support at <strong>Sections 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension) and 3.5 (Non-ASCII Addresses and Reply-Codes)</strong>.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The source support ends with the statements listed above. Use them to examine sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling in the applicable environment, not to imply a wider guarantee.</p>\n<h2>What the source does not establish</h2>\n<p>This RFC evidence supports only the named mail-protocol decision; it does not prove provider support, deliverability, or compliance for a particular flow. The citation is not a substitute for observed state, authorization, compliance evidence, or dependency health. Examine authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers before translating the source into an operational decision.</p>\n<h2>Applicability questions</h2>\n<ul>\n<li>For source statement 1 at <strong>Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension)</strong>, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?</li>\n<li>For source statement 2 at <strong>Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), negotiation rule</strong>, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?</li>\n<li>For source statement 3 at <strong>Sections 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension) and 3.5 (Non-ASCII Addresses and Reply-Codes)</strong>, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?</li>\n<li>Within sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling, which versions, roles, and configuration states define the review population?</li>\n<li>Could authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers invalidate the test, hide a failure, or change applicability?</li>\n<li>Who owns the decision, and which observation requires stopping, escalation, or rollback?</li>\n</ul>\n<h2>DSE recommendation:</h2>\n<p>DSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Make the source, asset scope, owner, and expected outcome explicit in the review record. Record the source location, examined part of sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.</p>\n<p>Do not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.</p>\n<h2>Verification and evidence</h2>\n<p>A reviewer should be able to retrace the decision from <strong>Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension)</strong>; <strong>Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), negotiation rule</strong>; <strong>Sections 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension) and 3.5 (Non-ASCII Addresses and Reply-Codes)</strong> through sanitized messages, DNS records, SMTP transcripts, authentication results, policy evaluation, and delivery or rejection logs. Record what was collected, where, when, by whom, and which system or role it represents.</p>\n<p>Preserve both successful and failed observations, along with approval and rollback evidence. Avoid uncontrolled production experiments. Assign an expiry or event-driven recheck so the conclusion is not treated as permanent.</p>\n<h2>Official references</h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6531.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">RFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email</a> — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force</li>\n</ul>",
        "content_text": "Frame this document as a source-led configuration and assurance check: Negotiate SMTPUTF8 before transporting internationalized addresses. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.\nSource fact:\nThe official RFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:\n\nAn SMTP server advertising SMTPUTF8 accepts UTF-8 wherever the SMTP mailbox grammar permits a mailbox value. The research record locates this support at Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension).\nA client may send internationalized mailbox names and UTF-8 headers only after the server advertises SMTPUTF8 in its EHLO response. The research record locates this support at Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), negotiation rule.\nIf the next SMTP server lacks SMTPUTF8, the client must not transmit the internationalized message and instead transforms, rejects, requeues, or tries another MX as permitted. The research record locates this support at Sections 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension) and 3.5 (Non-ASCII Addresses and Reply-Codes).\n\nThe source support ends with the statements listed above. Use them to examine sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling in the applicable environment, not to imply a wider guarantee.\nWhat the source does not establish\nThis RFC evidence supports only the named mail-protocol decision; it does not prove provider support, deliverability, or compliance for a particular flow. The citation is not a substitute for observed state, authorization, compliance evidence, or dependency health. Examine authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers before translating the source into an operational decision.\nApplicability questions\n\nFor source statement 1 at Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nFor source statement 2 at Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), negotiation rule, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nFor source statement 3 at Sections 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension) and 3.5 (Non-ASCII Addresses and Reply-Codes), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nWithin sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling, which versions, roles, and configuration states define the review population?\nCould authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers invalidate the test, hide a failure, or change applicability?\nWho owns the decision, and which observation requires stopping, escalation, or rollback?\n\nDSE recommendation:\nDSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Make the source, asset scope, owner, and expected outcome explicit in the review record. Record the source location, examined part of sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.\nDo not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.\nVerification and evidence\nA reviewer should be able to retrace the decision from Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension); Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), negotiation rule; Sections 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension) and 3.5 (Non-ASCII Addresses and Reply-Codes) through sanitized messages, DNS records, SMTP transcripts, authentication results, policy evaluation, and delivery or rejection logs. Record what was collected, where, when, by whom, and which system or role it represents.\nPreserve both successful and failed observations, along with approval and rollback evidence. Avoid uncontrolled production experiments. Assign an expiry or event-driven recheck so the conclusion is not treated as permanent.\nOfficial references\n\nRFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force",
        "content_markdown": "Frame this document as a source-led configuration and assurance check: Negotiate SMTPUTF8 before transporting internationalized addresses. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.\n\n## Source fact:\n\nThe official [RFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6531.html) from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:\n\n- An SMTP server advertising SMTPUTF8 accepts UTF-8 wherever the SMTP mailbox grammar permits a mailbox value. The research record locates this support at Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension).\n\n- A client may send internationalized mailbox names and UTF-8 headers only after the server advertises SMTPUTF8 in its EHLO response. The research record locates this support at Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), negotiation rule.\n\n- If the next SMTP server lacks SMTPUTF8, the client must not transmit the internationalized message and instead transforms, rejects, requeues, or tries another MX as permitted. The research record locates this support at Sections 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension) and 3.5 (Non-ASCII Addresses and Reply-Codes).\n\nThe source support ends with the statements listed above. Use them to examine sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling in the applicable environment, not to imply a wider guarantee.\n\n## What the source does not establish\n\nThis RFC evidence supports only the named mail-protocol decision; it does not prove provider support, deliverability, or compliance for a particular flow. The citation is not a substitute for observed state, authorization, compliance evidence, or dependency health. Examine authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers before translating the source into an operational decision.\n\n## Applicability questions\n\n- For source statement 1 at Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\n\n- For source statement 2 at Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), negotiation rule, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\n\n- For source statement 3 at Sections 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension) and 3.5 (Non-ASCII Addresses and Reply-Codes), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\n\n- Within sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling, which versions, roles, and configuration states define the review population?\n\n- Could authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers invalidate the test, hide a failure, or change applicability?\n\n- Who owns the decision, and which observation requires stopping, escalation, or rollback?\n\n## DSE recommendation:\n\nDSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Make the source, asset scope, owner, and expected outcome explicit in the review record. Record the source location, examined part of sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.\n\nDo not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.\n\n## Verification and evidence\n\nA reviewer should be able to retrace the decision from Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension); Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), negotiation rule; Sections 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension) and 3.5 (Non-ASCII Addresses and Reply-Codes) through sanitized messages, DNS records, SMTP transcripts, authentication results, policy evaluation, and delivery or rejection logs. Record what was collected, where, when, by whom, and which system or role it represents.\n\nPreserve both successful and failed observations, along with approval and rollback evidence. Avoid uncontrolled production experiments. Assign an expiry or event-driven recheck so the conclusion is not treated as permanent.\n\n## Official references\n\n- [RFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6531.html) — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force"
    },
    "json_ld": {
        "@context": "https://schema.org",
        "@graph": [
            {
                "@type": "Organization",
                "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization",
                "name": "Detection Systems & Engineering",
                "alternateName": "DSE Security",
                "url": "https://dsesecurity.com/",
                "logo": {
                    "@type": "ImageObject",
                    "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/dse-logo-20260812.png?v=1.8.20"
                }
            },
            {
                "@type": "Organization",
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#editorial-team",
                "name": "DSE Security Editorial Team",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/",
                "parentOrganization": {
                    "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization"
                }
            },
            {
                "@type": "WebSite",
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#website",
                "name": "DSE Updates",
                "alternateName": "DSE Security Knowledge Hub",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/",
                "inLanguage": "en-US",
                "publisher": {
                    "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization"
                },
                "potentialAction": {
                    "@type": "SearchAction",
                    "target": {
                        "@type": "EntryPoint",
                        "urlTemplate": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/?q={search_term_string}"
                    },
                    "query-input": "required name=search_term_string"
                }
            },
            {
                "@type": "WebPage",
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/",
                "isPartOf": {
                    "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#website"
                },
                "lastReviewed": "2026-08-26"
            },
            {
                "@type": "BreadcrumbList",
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/#breadcrumbs",
                "itemListElement": [
                    {
                        "@type": "ListItem",
                        "position": 1,
                        "name": "DSE Updates",
                        "item": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/"
                    },
                    {
                        "@type": "ListItem",
                        "position": 2,
                        "name": "Negotiate SMTPUTF8 before transporting internationalized addresses",
                        "item": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "@type": [
                    "Article",
                    "TechArticle"
                ],
                "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/#article",
                "identifier": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/",
                "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/",
                "headline": "Negotiate SMTPUTF8 before transporting internationalized addresses",
                "description": "Use RFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email to review this narrow operational decision without extending the source beyond its stated scope.",
                "abstract": "Use RFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email to review this narrow operational decision without extending the source beyond its stated scope.",
                "articleBody": "Frame this document as a source-led configuration and assurance check: Negotiate SMTPUTF8 before transporting internationalized addresses. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.\nSource fact:\nThe official RFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:\n\nAn SMTP server advertising SMTPUTF8 accepts UTF-8 wherever the SMTP mailbox grammar permits a mailbox value. The research record locates this support at Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension).\nA client may send internationalized mailbox names and UTF-8 headers only after the server advertises SMTPUTF8 in its EHLO response. The research record locates this support at Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), negotiation rule.\nIf the next SMTP server lacks SMTPUTF8, the client must not transmit the internationalized message and instead transforms, rejects, requeues, or tries another MX as permitted. The research record locates this support at Sections 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension) and 3.5 (Non-ASCII Addresses and Reply-Codes).\n\nThe source support ends with the statements listed above. Use them to examine sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling in the applicable environment, not to imply a wider guarantee.\nWhat the source does not establish\nThis RFC evidence supports only the named mail-protocol decision; it does not prove provider support, deliverability, or compliance for a particular flow. The citation is not a substitute for observed state, authorization, compliance evidence, or dependency health. Examine authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers before translating the source into an operational decision.\nApplicability questions\n\nFor source statement 1 at Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nFor source statement 2 at Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), negotiation rule, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nFor source statement 3 at Sections 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension) and 3.5 (Non-ASCII Addresses and Reply-Codes), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?\nWithin sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling, which versions, roles, and configuration states define the review population?\nCould authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers invalidate the test, hide a failure, or change applicability?\nWho owns the decision, and which observation requires stopping, escalation, or rollback?\n\nDSE recommendation:\nDSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Make the source, asset scope, owner, and expected outcome explicit in the review record. Record the source location, examined part of sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.\nDo not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.\nVerification and evidence\nA reviewer should be able to retrace the decision from Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension); Section 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension), negotiation rule; Sections 3.2 (The SMTPUTF8 Extension) and 3.5 (Non-ASCII Addresses and Reply-Codes) through sanitized messages, DNS records, SMTP transcripts, authentication results, policy evaluation, and delivery or rejection logs. Record what was collected, where, when, by whom, and which system or role it represents.\nPreserve both successful and failed observations, along with approval and rollback evidence. Avoid uncontrolled production experiments. Assign an expiry or event-driven recheck so the conclusion is not treated as permanent.\nOfficial references\n\nRFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force",
                "datePublished": "2026-08-27T12:16:58+00:00",
                "dateModified": "2026-08-27T12:36:15+00:00",
                "mainEntityOfPage": {
                    "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/"
                },
                "inLanguage": "en-US",
                "isAccessibleForFree": true,
                "author": {
                    "@type": "Organization",
                    "name": "DSE Security Editorial Team",
                    "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/#editorial-team"
                },
                "publisher": {
                    "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization"
                },
                "image": {
                    "@type": "ImageObject",
                    "@id": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/negotiate-smtputf8-before-transporting-internationalized-addresses/#primaryimage",
                    "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-social-v2.jpg?v=1.8.20",
                    "contentUrl": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/assets/editorial/network-infrastructure-social-v2.jpg?v=1.8.20",
                    "width": 1200,
                    "height": 630,
                    "caption": "Negotiate SMTPUTF8 before transporting internationalized addresses"
                },
                "articleSection": [
                    "Cybersecurity",
                    "Networks & Infrastructure"
                ],
                "keywords": [
                    "Cybersecurity",
                    "Networks & Infrastructure",
                    "Explainer",
                    "Advisory priority"
                ],
                "genre": "Explainer",
                "about": [
                    {
                        "@type": "Thing",
                        "name": "Cybersecurity",
                        "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/topic/cybersecurity/"
                    },
                    {
                        "@type": "Thing",
                        "name": "Networks & Infrastructure",
                        "url": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/topic/networks-infrastructure/"
                    }
                ],
                "wordCount": 594,
                "timeRequired": "PT3M",
                "publishingPrinciples": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/updates/dse-updates-editorial-methodology/",
                "usageInfo": "https://update.dsesecurity.com/usage/",
                "copyrightHolder": {
                    "@id": "https://dsesecurity.com/#organization"
                },
                "copyrightNotice": "Copyright © 2026 Detection Systems & Engineering. All rights reserved.",
                "citation": {
                    "@type": "CreativeWork",
                    "name": "RFC 6531 — SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email",
                    "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6531.html"
                }
            }
        ]
    }
}