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