Xref: utzoo comp.misc:3169 comp.std.misc:53 comp.mail.misc:1197 comp.mail.uucp:1678
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.std.misc,comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Standardizing Email?
Message-ID: <1988Aug22.181252.6125@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <788@vsi.UUCP> <1380@cloud9.UUCP> <3437@phri.UUCP> <1101@maynard.BSW.COM>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 18:12:52 GMT

In article <1101@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes:
>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.

And it's quite impossible, of course, to *layer* a standard for such things
on top of RFC822?  (Of course, it's much more *interesting* to invent a new
standard from the ground up, rather than adhering to silly, old-fashioned
ideas like building on others' work and maintaining compatibility, but adults
supposedly are capable of doing what's right, not just what's fun.)
-- 
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu