[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is it reasonable?
> It became clear that in order to be capable of accepting an 8 bit
> message for tranfer, the MTA would have to be become header-aware, and
> in a highly nontrivial way. # --------------- ?
> I invite you to try and come up with a clean way of doing the all the work
> an MTA needs to do to take a mix of 8 bit, 8 bit encoded in 7 bit, and
> pure binary encoded in 7 or 8 bits and convert it to whatever outgoing
> path it is faced with. You either need two completely independent levels
> of encoding (they have to be completely independent if the MTA is supposed
> to be able to add a header line without knowing if other encodings are
> present) or the MTA has to get into the headers and boogie.
Let me address both of these concerns. The first point is
contradicted by the second. If the two levels of encoding are
independent, no header-awarness is needed. Whether it is "grotesque"
is a different matter.
It is only the ability to send 8 bit text unencoded that I hear people
arguing for. It would be nice to send binary, but lets leave that
bigger problem for later. So, let's make a simplifying assertion for
the moment. If everything besides 8 bit text (Fax, sound, video,
argitaryt binary) is translated to a 7 bit friendly format, little
conversion is needed by the high level encodings in even the worst
multi-part, multi-media through a 8 to 7 conversion senario. (See my
previous note for an example)
We are already defining part-level encodings to be 7 bit friendly, so
this does not change the current proposal. Only 8 bit text needs to
be converted. This is not grotesque. Furthermore, consider that the
majority of mail sent will continue to be single-body part text-only.
This is now far from grotesque.
It may be helpful if you could further explain senarios which
cause a "Grotesque" situation, so the list can evaluate the criticism.
After several prods, I still have only your assertion to go by.