Sounds like we're actually in violent agreement, then. -- N
On Sunday, April 20, 2003, at 09:55 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Nathaniel,
Read my original post, I was not disputing your contention re binary
I was stating that the requirement for base64 comes from more than the
7/8
bit nonsense.
RFC 3030 is a long overdue correction to the SMTP protocol. It is
very similar to the chunked encoding I worked on in HTTP. You may
recall
that I was the principal opponent of reusung the inappropriate MIME
chunking
mechanism for that purpose.
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: Nathaniel Borenstein [mailto:nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 3:22 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] How to defeat spam that uses encryption?
On Sunday, April 20, 2003, at 02:32 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The word 'molest' was chosen quite deliberately. And all these
problems exist whether you have 8-bit or 7-bit transport.
Yes, that's why I didn't recommend or even mention 8-bit
transport. I
recommended binary transport. There's a big difference, and the
problems you describe all go away with binary transport. You're
arguing with a straw man that nobody is advocating -- please
check out
RFC 3030, as I mentioned in my previous message.
----
A smart bomb would work for peace.
----
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg