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 AA06327; Fri, 12 Jul 91 15:39:36 EDT
Received: from dimacs.rutgers.edu by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08)
id AA14550; Fri, 12 Jul 91 15:38:06 EDT
Received: by dimacs.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08)
id AA17531; Fri, 12 Jul 91 14:21:40 EDT
Received: from alw.nih.gov by dimacs.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08)
id AA17524; Fri, 12 Jul 91 14:21:36 EDT
Received: from cu.nih.gov by alw.nih.gov (5.61/1.35(alw-2.1))
id AA03078; Fri, 12 Jul 91 14:21:32 -0400
From: "Roger Fajman" <RAF(_at_)cu(_dot_)nih(_dot_)gov>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 14:20:22 EDT
Subject: Re: charset philosophy
Um, I forgot to mention that we probably shouldn't have EBCDIC
messages on "The Internet" itself. EBCDIC messages would probably be
confined to BITNET or whatever. RFC-XXXX itself might, or might not,
mention EBCDIC, but I think it should be mentioned *somewhere*.
Initially, I thought this would have been fairly obvious and didn't
need mentioning, but I changed my mind, and decided to make this clear
before people like Randall and John point this out.
Very true - no one wants to send mail in EBCDIC on the Internet. But
it should not be forgotten that there are quite a few EBCDIC hosts
directly connected to the Internet. Some of them may be acting as
MX relays for ASCII hosts.
Roger Fajman Telephone: +1 301 402 1246
National Institutes of Health BITNET: RAF(_at_)NIHCU
Bethesda, Maryland, USA Internet: