On Fri, 02 Dec 1994 21:31:52 +0200, Masataka Ohta said:
Then these MUA's have been violating RFC 822 for years.
I know that's a typical view of US-centric people who do not know the
real world.
<OK guys. I've counted to 10, followed Spaf's advice in the
news.announce.newusers postings and hit the bathroom, etc etc etc. I
*still* have to say this. I apologize for any unprofessional
behavior, but enough is enough>
Mastaka:
YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
Quoting RFC822, section 3.1:
3. LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF MESSAGES
3.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
A message consists of header fields and, optionally, a body.
The body is simply a sequence of lines containing ASCII charac-
ters. It is separated from the headers by a null line (i.e., a
line with nothing preceding the CRLF).
OK? You see that second sentence? It says "the body is a sequence of
lines containing ASCII characters". If you have be en putting
something other than ASCII in the body of an RFC822 mail, YOU ARE
VIOLATING RFC822. The mere fact that in your particular application,
it happens to work, does NOT mean that it's legal.
I am sorry, but it is *NOT* "US Centric" to point out that if the
standard says "ASCII", and you put in non-ASCII, you are violating the
standard.
I'll say it one more time:
1) RFC822 says messages are IN ASCII.
2) Anything that puts non-ASCII in an alledged RFC822 message is
therefor violating RFC822. It may WORK, but it is IN VIOLATION.
3) No amount of hand-waving will change points 1 and 2.
Mr. Ohta would have
us believe otherwise, but his claims have been disproven many times.
Show us an example, or we regard your statement disproved.
See above.
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Engineer
Virginia Tech