Re: a few short notes
2004-02-01 17:23:23
Headers need not be Internationalization so long we hide the headers
from the users (or as well as we can).
-James Seng
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
On Feb 1, 2004, at 7:56 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I'm not convinced that using non-ASCII characters in headers is a good
idea either.
You have no choice. This is a global service, so it has to support
global usage. Many of the challenges in dealing with building e-mail
systems today is to get things running properly in a global environment
because the initial system wasn't set up for that.
If you don't allow users globally to use the system in their native
environment, it'll kill the proposal. It won't be adopted. The system
needs a way to gracefully fall back from missing fonts and etc, but that
kind of stuff is well-understood in the unicode world already, so I
think that's a non-issue.
Headers must be simple and unambiguous. Having text in them that your
computer can't even display and if it can, 99% of the world population
can't spell, isn't a good idea.
well, go count how many native Mandarin speakers there are in the world,
and then realize your argument just outlawed English, too. It's a very
english-centric view, and it won't work in designing this new protocol.
recipient only, so they can be in any format, and others that must be
more general so they must be in ASCII.
Why? what *technical* reason is there for this limitation?
Remember, headers are primarily for computers to use, not people. so why
are you arbitrarily limiting their functionality? so you can read them?
Not a good reason.
Mandatory authentication is also a bad idea IMO. Obviously
authentication is very important and must be supported so that people
who only want to receive mail from verifyable sources get to implement
this policy, but that doesn't mean that we should force *everyone* to
use such a policy.
If we can't authenticate, we can't authorize. If we can't authorize, we
have the status quo. So we might as well go home. there has to be some
kind of provable identity here, or we solve nothing. Exactly what that
identity is can be flexible, as long as it exists.
Chris Bonatti had something to say about multicast. Obviously this is
something that applies to mailinglist rather than one-to-one messages.
and mailing lists are increasingly going to individualized messages. I
think designing for bulk delivery is the wrong direction here, and
actually enables the kind of e-mail I think we're trying to discourage
or stop.
Multicast is a different beast, but I think the person who noted that
the e-mail should include an access token to a streaming service had it
right; putting the streaming service into mail-ng means it's not e-mail
any longer. Let e-mail handle transporting the access token, don't try
to re-implement TCP-IP on top of TCP-IP within email-ng.
Important point: as long as email is a store and forward mechanism,
encrypting the transport makes little sense: encryption should be
end-to-end.
to me, if there's any opportunity to cross a network in plain-text, the
proposal is dead.
|
|