Re: encodings, base-64, etc.

I'm with Craig on objecting to BASE64-checksumming being held hostage to a
notion of checksumming the other encodings.  I am not sure what checksumming
means with the other encodings, and I take the conservative view of opposing
what I can not understand on the (possibly egotistical) grounds that if I
can't understand it J. Random Mail Implementor doesn't stand a chance.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: Comment on encapsulation BNF in latest RFC-XXXX, (continued) Re: Comment on encapsulation BNF in latest RFC-XXXX, Ned Freed, Postmaster Re: Comment on encapsulation BNF in latest RFC-XXXX, Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD) Re: Comment on encapsulation BNF in latest RFC-XXXX, Keith Moore Re: Comment on encapsulation BNF in latest RFC-XXXX, henry Re: Comment on encapsulation BNF in latest RFC-XXXX, Nathaniel Borenstein encodings, base-64, etc., henry Re: encodings, base-64, etc., Nathaniel Borenstein Re: encodings, base-64, etc., Craig_Everhart Re: encodings, base-64, etc., Rudy_Nedved Re: encodings, base-64, etc., Bill Janssen Re: encodings, base-64, etc., Mark Crispin <= Re: encodings, base-64, etc., Dave Crocker Re: Comment on encapsulation BNF in latest RFC-XXXX, Dave Crocker Re: Comment on encapsulation BNF in latest RFC-XXXX, Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)

Previous by Date:	re: RFC XXXX Security issues WAS: trojan horses in RFC XXXX mail, Mark Crispin
Next by Date:	Re: checksums, James M Galvin
Previous by Thread:	Re: encodings, base-64, etc., Bill Janssen
Next by Thread:	Re: encodings, base-64, etc., Dave Crocker
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]