ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: why it is a problem to transmit binary as binary in mail

1991-09-18 10:47:01
On Wed, 18 Sep 91 17:13:44 +0200, Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD) wrote:
If we do not have a common platform, then we'll end up like Europe with its
dozens of ridiculous little countries, would-be countries, and feuding
tribes, none of which talk to each other very well.
So what makes Europe bashing intrisically better ???? At least we don't
pretend to rule the world (any more... 8-)).                          /AF

This is a reaction to the repeatedly-stated notion that somehow any attempt to
establish commonality and interoperability is `US-centric'.  It is no such
thing.  True, large parts of North America have a political, cultural, and
social unity that Europeans can only fantasize about; but that does not make
such attributes `US-centric'.  Nor does it make such a unified platform in e-
mail `US-centric'.

The last time the Internet e-mail community gave in to European pressure, we
ended up with those obscene two letter top-level domain names to indicate
country.  This was not a step forwards; it was a giant step backwards.  We
lost the original intent of the DNS, which was to have a truly international
outlook on naming with domains such as COM, EDU, GOV, MIL, and ORG.  We now
have the case where two machines in the same organization are forced to be in
different domains.  And now we even have some Europeans thinking that the *US*
forced the two-letter country names and kicked out foreign systems from the
three-letter domains!

I see the push for 8-bits as being just another way to create little feudal
domains.  It does so in two ways.  First, it erects a wall and a moat to
separate those that are, in one way or another, stuck with 7-bits.  Second, by
not doing anything about the character set problem (and indeed, being designed
specifically to avoid having to deal with it) it creates new walls and moats
inside the 8-bit `enclave'.

We'd be better off going to X.400 than this.


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