ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC 2047 and gatewaying

2002-12-31 10:15:43

In <200212302147(_dot_)gBULlFj29721(_at_)astro(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> 
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:

Anyway, the Usefor list is the place to discuss these issues. All we are
concerned with here is whether my text covers the use of RFC 2047/2231
well enough.

The issues I proposed should be taken to the Usefor list did not relate to
RFC 2047/2231.

if the usefor spec is recommending violating either [2]822 or MIME
then you'd better discuss it here now - because otherwise you're going
to get shot down at last call.  and you'd bloody well deserve it.

No, the Usefor text is not recommending violating anything. The text I
posted here is entirely consistent the RFC 2047/2231 as regards all cases
that those RFCs appear to cover (and if it is not, then please tell me -
that is why it was posted here).

It is the cases that RFC 2047 does not cover that are at issue (namely
when a header is seen that the agent does not know how to parse). What do
present mail agents do when they see such things? Answer: they fudge it as
best they can. My text merely "suggested" (not "recommended", because that
word has special meaning) a course of action broadly in line with the
fudges that are already around.

The point is that such situations, though rare, will inevitably happen.
What is an agent to do in such cases? I proposed four alternatives, of
which the fudge was one, and invited people to say which they would do.
That invitation is still open.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

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