Re: content-charset & checksums

Right.  I advocate defining a default so implementers reading RFC-XXXX know
what to do, but then either strongly recommending against it or proscribing it
for implementers writing RFC-XXXX.  Just like we all know how to handle
        RCPT TO:<foo>
in SMTP even though it's banned.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
content-charset & checksums, (continued) content-charset & checksums, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: checksums (was: content-charset & checksums), James M Galvin Re: checksums (was: content-charset & checksums), David J. Camp Re: checksums (was: content-charset & checksums), Dave Crocker re: content-charset & checksums, Mark Crispin Re: content-charset & checksums, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: content-charset & checksums, Mark Crispin Re: checksums, James M Galvin Re: checksums, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: content-charset & checksums, Greg Vaudreuil Re: content-charset & checksums, Mark Crispin <= Re: content-charset & checksums, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: content-charset & checksums, Mark Crispin Re: content-charset & checksums, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: content-charset & checksums, Mark Crispin Re: content-charset & checksums, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: content-charset & checksums, Nathaniel Borenstein plain-text checksums considered useless, henry Re: plain-text checksums considered useless, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: plain-text checksums considered useless, Erik E. Fair more content-charset, Harald Tveit Alvestrand

Previous by Date:	Re: content-charset & checksums, Greg Vaudreuil
Next by Date:	Re: checksums, Nathaniel Borenstein
Previous by Thread:	Re: content-charset & checksums, Greg Vaudreuil
Next by Thread:	Re: content-charset & checksums, Nathaniel Borenstein
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]