From: Henry Spencer (henry@spsystems.net)
Date: Sun Jul 04 2004 - 00:33:44 CDT
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> ...The issue is bad protocol design; RFC 1036 shouldn't have
> attempted to overload protocol content on an unstructured field reserved
> for only human-readable content...
Note that it wasn't 1036's idea; 1036 is quite explicit that "cmsg " should
be recognized only for backward compatibility with earlier practices. (It
would be interesting to know just when that crept in, in fact -- it's not
mentioned at all in RFC 850, oddly enough.)
Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net