Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA16230; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 07:00:36 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.6); Tue, 23 Jul 1996 06:57:57 -0400 Received: from fliptop.pilsnet.sunet.se (root@fliptop.pilsnet.sunet.se [192.36.125.196]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id GAA15940; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 06:57:46 -0400 Received: from fliptop.pilsnet.sunet.se (liman@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fliptop.pilsnet.sunet.se (8.8.Alpha.1/8.8.Alpha.1) with ESMTP id GAA04472; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 06:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199607231057.GAA04472@fliptop.pilsnet.sunet.se> To: Keith Moore cc: ietf-drums Subject: Re: Recommending use of 8-bit transport In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:37:48 EDT." <199607230437.AAA01501@ig.cs.utk.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 12:57:43 +0200 From: Lars-Johan Liman moore@cs.utk.edu: > The 8BITMIME spec does not require this, and I propose that we don't > try to walk down that path again. OK, not here. > Instead, I suggest: > a) if a site cares about receiving non-ASCII mail, it should make > ... I think I can agree with this. > b) if a recipient forwards mail from his mailbox to somewhere else, > that recipient is responsible for arranging either for an 8-bit > clean path, or conversion of the message to 7-bit. > My assumption is that we'll get (nearly) universal, 8-bit transparency > more quickly by allowing 8BITMIME implementations to simply be 8-bit clean, > than we will if we require them to do 8-to-7 conversion. At first this made me feel uncomfortable. To me, the C-T-E system and 8BITMIME was created to overcome the old 7bit limitation, and to give implementors the framework to do automatic conversion, but maybe we have reached the point in time when 8bit transportation is in such majority that we can slowly, slowly start to deprecate 7bit transportation. A first step of doing this would be to adopt your point of view. Earlier, 7bit was the default, and if you wanted 8bit you had to do something manually. From there we went to "automatic conversion", where we are now. The next logical step is "if you want 7bit, you have to do it by hand", and then finally (in years to come) rule out 7bit entirely. Yes, maybe the time has come to start taking the next step ... > I also believe that we'll have far less damage to mail messages if > we don't do conversion very often. Agreed to 100%! I would like to quote Stef, who at the Toronto IETF said something that struck me as one of the most fundamental truths of the electronic mail world: "I have never seen a message that was improved by passing it to a gateway." /Liman