This message was not delivered due to problems at our site. It is being resent.
The following is a copy of the message:
Received: from rutgers.edu (-:RUTGERS.EDU:-) by yonge.csri.toronto.edu via TCP
with SMTP id AA23208; Thu, 11 Jul 91 09:13:19 EDT
Received: from dimacs.rutgers.edu by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08)
id AA07749; Thu, 11 Jul 91 09:11:47 EDT
Received: by dimacs.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08)
id AA25144; Thu, 11 Jul 91 08:25:23 EDT
Received: from srawgw.sra.co.jp by dimacs.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08)
id AA25140; Thu, 11 Jul 91 08:25:16 EDT
Received: from srava.sra.co.jp by srawgw.sra.co.jp (5.64WH/1.4)
id AA13804; Thu, 11 Jul 91 21:24:55 +0859
Received: from sran8.sra.co.jp by srava.sra.co.jp (5.64b/6.4J.6-BJW)
id AA23779; Thu, 11 Jul 91 21:24:50 +0900
Received: from localhost by sran8.sra.co.jp (4.0/6.4J.6-SJ)
id AA23556; Thu, 11 Jul 91 21:23:02 JST
From: erik(_at_)sra(_dot_)co(_dot_)jp (Erik M. van der Poel)
Subject: charset philosophy
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 21:23:00 +0900
Hi, IETF-822 People!
Just a quick question to see how others feel about this:
If we send a plain ASCII text message and we wish to label it with a
content type header and a character encoding identifier, we include
Today, when ASCII messages cross a border into an EBCDIC world, they
are converted to EBCDIC. Assuming that such a gateway is fully
upgraded to conform to the new RFC-XXXX, what should be done about the
content type header? Should it be changed to the following?
Or something like that?
Thanks in advance for any replies,