🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CKD.92Dec15161747@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>The "nonsense" is assuming that "just sending 8 bits" will work in the face
>of these software issues.  There are three ways to send 8-bit email through
>SMTP:
>
>1) make agreements to "just send 8 bits".  Works within an enclave.
>
>2) extend SMTP in some way to be guaranteed 8-bit compatible.
>
>3) "just send it and hope it gets there okay."
>
>The problem is that (1) tends to generalize into (3)...where the real
>solution is (2).

Look, if you're not using anything but ASCII "just send 8 bits"
works just fine. If you have an old software and want to get
extended character set you can't do it anyway, right?

"Just send 8 bits" is the proper superset of "just send 7 bits"
-- exactly the same as adding new header fields. It breaks nothing
as long as you do not use extensions.

>I'm certainly not insensitive to the needs of languages that don't fit in
>USASCII.  However, I'm also not insensitive to the needs of sites that
>could care less about 8-bit characters, have vendor-supplied software that
>blows up on 8-bit data, and aren't prepared to upgrade immediately.

If the vendor-software crashes on, say, a file with 1025-byte line
it's a bug, isn't it? If a program craches on ANYTHING it's a bug.
A bug is a bug is a bug. Call their tech support and have them to
fix it.

>As soon as there's a compatible SMTP extension for 8 bits, I'll at least
>try to hack it into my mailer (assuming the UIUC IDA sendmail folks don't
>beat me to it). 

"Just send 8 bits" *is* backward compatible. Check your logic.

>But I won't install anything that tries to pull a Nike and
>"Just Do It" to some unsuspecting mailer somewhere.

Then why on the Earth did you upgrade your software the last time?

--vadim

"Not only is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell bad." -- Rob Pike