From: D. J. Bernstein (djb@cr.yp.to)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 20:09:13 CST
Keith ``7 bits forever!'' Moore writes:
> your naivete is showing even worse than usual -- about what was
> technically feasible at the time, what was politically feasible at the
> time, what would interoperate with the installed base at the time
The ietf-smtp archives aren't a secret, Keith.
We can all see that, early in 1991, Robert Ullmann and Andre Pirard and
others proposed requiring 8-bit-clean mail software. This requirement
should have been adopted.
We can all see that the only objection to that requirement was the claim
that 8-bit support would take a long time to be deployed. You were aware
of the massive long-term benefits; you simply refused to plan ahead.
For example, Paul Vixie said that he had some seven-year-old sendmail
binaries, and concluded ``with near-certainty'' that ``any changes to
the SMTP spec will take at least a decade to reach 90% of the critical
server population.''
In fact, 8-bit _body_ support was deployed much more quickly than that,
and if you hadn't screwed up in 1991 then complete 8-bit support would
have come along with 8-bit body support. But the issue is not the exact
number of years---the issue is how amazingly shortsighted you were.
Similarly, UTF-8 support should have been required in all mail software
when RFC 2277 was published five years ago. Instead, according to your
so-called ``standards,'' it's perfectly acceptable---in 2003---to deploy
a mailer that throws away everything other than ASCII.
Aren't you even slightly ashamed of yourself?
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago