-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
I'm implementing the syntax part of draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01[1]
and noted that no charset is defined for the explanation string.
There's also no kind of language handshake. These days, this is
unacceptable for a message which should be presented to end users.
The exp message is both provided by and used by the sending domain.
The sending domain can put anything it wants in there since they
are the only ones who will see it. The receiver simply relays verbatim
back to the sender what the senders DNS provided.
So even if every sending domain had its own unique charset encoding,
everything
would work smoothly. There is no need for an encoding standard to
ensure interoperation.
A suggested standard would be useful to avoid reinventing the wheel,
but following it is not needed for interoperability.
A suggested standard is a very good idea. If for no other
reason than saving headaches for multiple admins. A suggested
standard becomes the default decision.
- --
Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtaylor(_at_)vocalabs(_dot_)com http://www.vocalabs.com/
(952)941-6580x203
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD4DBQFCo1R18/QSptFdBtURAs3vAJdDkQpB8FVnAfuohFU8AvIqPSu1AJ9JCRX6
Xl2BAhDTCVJL/pzwyF1kzQ==
=2xxc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----