[Top] [All Lists]

Forwarding: dropped mail

1991-07-22 14:48:10
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:-) by via TCP 
with SMTP id AA06327; Fri, 12 Jul 91 15:39:36 EDT
Received: from by (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) 
        id AA14550; Fri, 12 Jul 91 15:38:06 EDT
Received: by (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) 
        id AA17531; Fri, 12 Jul 91 14:21:40 EDT
Received: from by (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) 
        id AA17524; Fri, 12 Jul 91 14:21:36 EDT
Received: from by (5.61/1.35(alw-2.1))
        id AA03078; Fri, 12 Jul 91 14:21:32 -0400
Message-Id: <9107121821(_dot_)AA03078(_at_)alw(_dot_)nih(_dot_)gov>
To: ietf-822(_at_)dimacs(_dot_)rutgers(_dot_)edu
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:   

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>