re: Nathaniels comments

[kankkune@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Risto Kankkunen)]

Robert Ullmann:
> Subject: re: Nathaniels comments
> To: IETF SMTP list  <IETF-SMTP@dimacs.rutgers.edu>
> From: Robert Ullmann  <ARIEL@relay.prime.com>
> Encoding: 42 message (from R Kankkunen), 34 text (note by ARIEL)
> Comment: Created using PRIMAILPLUS Version 1.0 Alpha 5e
> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 91 15:49:44 EST
> 
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 20:51:01 +0200
> From: kankkune@cs.helsinki.fi (Risto Kankkunen)
> In-Reply-To: Robert Ullmann's message as of Feb  7, 11:59
> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.0 10/31/90)
> To: IETF SMTP list <IETF-SMTP@dimacs.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: re: Nathaniels comments
> Reply-To: ietf-smtp@dimacs.rutgers.edu
> 
> [my message deleted]
> --- Annotation added by ARIEL :
> 
> Hi,
> 
> this is an example of an included message, check out the header.

But this was catenated, not recursively encapsulated. As I said, you
even can't recursively include messages in RFC 1154, so I don't
understand how they can be so important. Using Nathaniel's method, you
can both catenate and recursively include, but the latter isn't very
useful. Using Nathaniel's syntax your message would have looked like:

\begin(message (from R Kankkunen))
[text from my message here]
\end(message (from R Kankkunen))
\begin(text (note by ARIEL))
[your reply here]
\end(text (note by ARIEL))

Not readable?

> One strong objective was that a human user, with only a text
> editor, could reasonably interpret a message, regardless of
> the OS environment.

I think Nathaniel's method would be more suitable and less error-prone
to manual handling. The few structure marks are easier to add or remove
than geting the line counts right.

Risto

-- 
 Risto Kankkunen                   kankkune@cs.Helsinki.FI (Internet)
 Department of Computer Science    kankkunen@finuh          (Bitnet)
 University of Helsinki, Finland   ..!mcsun!uhecs!kankkune   (UUCP)