Well, I am not disgusted, but I certainly am discouraged and
frustrated to read such long and simply argumentative excahnges with
leo j mclaughlin and his protagonists (of which I am one). I too
would describe them as a "filibuster".
What I see is that the "8-bit SMTP" SMTPextensions proponenets are
(again) interfering in the good work of the RFC822extensions group
(e.g., RFC XXXX), and I for one would like to see our esteemed
IETF-SMTP/IETF-822 Chair step in to rule on the "ORDER" of what is
happening. In short, this is another "point of order" call for
resolution of intereference between the two groups.
I think that John Klenson did a masterful job of analysis of the whole
issue, and I agree with his conclusions, as I have noted in a prior
Can we please get on with coming to closure on whether we are going to
save a little effort and bandwidth in the MTAs, at great expense and
diffuculty in the UAs?
BTW, I see the introduction of PEM as an (unitentional and accidental)
red herring, since PEM messages will always be presented to the
originating MTA by the UA as a single (7-bit) pre-encoded object, and
it is not to be dissected by any system other than a recipient PEM UA
tool. This is not a "nested encodings" issue at all, since PEM does
not need any help to do whhat it is doing, and no one outside PEM will
ever see the inseides of PEM objects. God help us if some misguided
MTA were to decide it "knew better" how to take a PEM message apart
"to help" its local UA!
So, can we please cut the filibuster and get to the point?...\Stef