[Top] [All Lists]

Re: How to handle a lot of character set Content-types

1991-05-06 20:56:19
Yeah!  Lets just forget the whole bit about what is an MTA or UA and
just write code!  All this effort to sort things out and develop a
clear model of what we can and should do is just getting in the way.
LETS GO CUT SOME DAMN CODE!  Who cares how it interworks anyway?


----- Begin 

To: Craig_Everhart(_at_)transarc(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf-822(_at_)dimacs(_dot_)rutgers(_dot_)EDU
Subject: Re: How to handle a lot of character set Content-types 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 03 May 91 10:13:05 -0400."
Date: Sat, 04 May 91 09:49:38 +1000

I think my brain has been permanently deranged by too much exposure
to the OSI Reference Model. The fact that you have a process on your
system whose main job is to be an MTA, and another process whose
main job is to be a UA doesn't prove that the first process is precisely
an MTA and that the second is precisely a UA and that the interprocess
communication between them is the MTA-UA interface. It is quite
possible for the job of the UA to be shared between the first and
second process, and for the MTA-UA interface to actually be in the
internals of the process which is mostly an MTA. 

My interest in letting MTAs change things stemmed from a desire to change
code for the process which is mostly-an-MTA. Once one accepts the fact
that part of the code in there is UA code this ceases to be an issue.
In fact I accept that that UA code in the mostly-an-MTA process can do
anything it likes before handing over to the mostly-a-UA process.

Given this improved understanding of the difference between an MTA and
a UA, I agree with Craig Everhart: MTAs should leave the message alone.

Also all of my previous messages are completely confused. I suggest

        rmm `pick -from smart`

Oh, you already did that ...

Bob Smart

--------- End