[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [idn] host name vs. domain name



Title: RE: [idn] host name vs. domain name


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@inet.org]
...
> At 12:05 16-03-00 , Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
> >Most software will be able to handle UTF-8 for any text.
>
> This is a very bold claim.  Please substantiate the use
> of the word "most".  Most within which sample ?
> Most for what KIND of software ?  Please qualify your
> assertions.

Any new or substantially updated software that handles text
in any way.

> >It seems to me that you have not been so subjected to QP and
> >BASE64 during the last decade.  I have.  My collegues have.
> >Many, many more have.  No-one's pleased.  And the problem isn't
> >gone yet.
>
> I'm not sympathetic.  Sendmail can eliminate both QP and
> BASE64-for-text at delivery time.  The configuration on my
> desktop at work automatically does this already.  Other MTAs could
> do the same.  Similarly, the MTA can down-convert to 7-bit,
> QP, and/or BASE64 if required -- without user involvement.

A decade of experience with this tells me that that (still!!)
***DOES NOT*** work without glitches.  I've been updating e-mail
clients by the year, sometimes several times a year, to loose at
least some of the bugs related to QP and BASE64.  And we got a
message just the other day, on this list, showing that it still
doesn't work well everywhere.  Not long ago somebody dragged me
into his office and asked why e-mail so-and-so was all garbled.
It turned out that the QP was not decoded due to a little NLCR
in the header.  Fairly new client software...

Please, not again!

> "Just send 8-bit"

As I have said repeatedley: that's not what I'm suggesting.
Please stop implying otherwise.

                Kind regards
                /kent k