> What you describe is "bad implementation" not "bad designed". Any bad
> implementation can make a good design look horrible.
It's a bad design because 1) it uses a reencoding (a TES), and 2) that
reencoding has a very narrow applicability, and even then needs to
be enabled by using certain headings.
> I am not
> saying I like QP or BASE64. It increase the size of mail unneccessary
> BUT it works.
With perpetual glitches due to the bad design.
Kind regards
/kent k
> -James Seng
>
> > Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
> > 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
>