Xref: utzoo comp.misc:3168 comp.std.misc:52 comp.mail.misc:1195 comp.mail.uucp:1677 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!think!maynard!campbell From: campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.std.misc,comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Standardizing Email? Message-ID: <1101@maynard.BSW.COM> Date: 21 Aug 88 05:19:22 GMT References: <788@vsi.UUCP> <1380@cloud9.UUCP> <3437@phri.UUCP> Reply-To: campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) Distribution: comp Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc. Lines: 24 In article <3437@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: }dts@cloud9.UUCP (Daniel Senie) writes: }-> There is a standard called X.400, which is the Message Handling Systems }-> standard. It allows dissimilar machines to exchange and transport mail. } }I thought that was what RFC-822 was all about. Silly me. RFC822 is incredibly primitive. It has no provisions for encoding messages with multiple parts. It has no notion of different content types -- everything must be 7-bit ASCII. It provides no way to encapsulate a message within a message. It has no provisions for non-English messages -- you must use 7-bit U.S. ASCII, and if your language uses accented or non-Latin characters, tough. It is nearly impossible to layer a real office automation system on top of RFC822, as there is no _standard_ way to mail binary files, revisable form documents, images, etc. etc. RFC822 (nee RFC733) was OK in 1973, but by now we should be eager to toss it out and move on to something with reasonable functionality. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. Internet: campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109 uucp: {husc6,mirror,think}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846