From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <024a01c053e8$2e14b140$0ab9c6d4@cybercable.fr> From: "Boyd Roberts" To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> References: <20001121174543.7C373199E4@mail.cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] problems with marshal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:23:42 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2ea112d8-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 From: > > the whole thing's a crock of shit, but if it's to be a working crock > of shit i can't really see much alternative to converting utf8 > plain/text attachments to quoted-printable. > it is a _very nasty_ problem indeed. being in france i've had to deal with ISO Latin 1 for a long time. oh, god, how many arguments have i had over this. > of course, then there's the issue of utf8 in header lines. =?.....?=, > rfc2047, aargh. read that one too. i had to do some corporate mail snooping so that's why understand the horror of it all. i understand the horror, but not all of MIME. it's 150 pages of pure trash. saying it's 8bit doesn't really help 'cos it's a 7 bit transport unless it's ESMTP _and_ the ESMTP implementation returns 8BITMIME as one of the supported options (IIRC). doesn't 7 bit come from the IMPs? a long time ago i suggested to paul vixie just to add a new SMTP command 'will you do 8 bit transport'? if the response was no the message would be returned. this was based on the assumption that all messages potentially had 8 bit chars and no analysis of the message body. he said that MIME would take care of all of that. i didn't agree. even in '92 i think it was pretty safe to say that most/all? transports were 8 bit. i wanted to force people who had 7 bit transports to chuck 'em, if such things still existed.