In <3E5845D1(_dot_)4040708(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com> "Eric A. Hall"
<ehall(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com> writes:
on 2/21/2003 4:25 PM Dan Kohn wrote:
Note that there's absolutely no reason why yEnc (perhaps with optional
gzip functionality added in) can't be specified as a new
Content-Transport-Encoding as an alternative to base64. Further, if
message/partial doesn't do the job, than a new application/news-partial
could be specified.
Unfortunately there are loads of issues that make this whole thing very
complex. Its been tackled at least a few times, with the result typically
being that everybody is too exhausted to continue discussing it.
Yes, I have been round this before. It is clear that, even if the Yenc
people were to use
Content-Transfer-Encoding: x-yenc
which they could start doing tomorrow, things would be much simpler.
I have tried to persuade the relevant people to produce an internet-draft
proposing it as an official CTE. But they don't want to know. They seem
convinced that the IETF is totally against all change, and that they would
be heavily sat upon, and that the whole process would be far too
cumbersome and time consuming, and "hey it works fine already, we don't
need no stinkin' IETF". All very sad, but that's how some people regard
the IETF. So we are stuck with indicating the presence of yEnc by a flag
in the Subject header. It is a mess.
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