[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] host name vs. domain name
- To: Karlsson Kent - keka <keka@im.se>
- Subject: Re: [idn] host name vs. domain name
- From: James Seng <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:49:42 +0800
- CC: "'RJ Atkinson'" <rja@inet.org>, idn@ops.ietf.org
- Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:52:01 -0800
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
Kent,
What you describe is "bad implementation" not "bad designed". Any bad
implementation can make a good design look horrible. I am not saying I like QP
or BASE64. It increase the size of mail unneccessary BUT it works.
-James Seng
> Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
> A decade of experience with this tells me that that (still!!)
> ***DOES NOT*** work without glitches. I've been updating e-mail
> clients by the year, sometimes several times a year, to loose at
> least some of the bugs related to QP and BASE64. And we got a
> message just the other day, on this list, showing that it still
> doesn't work well everywhere. Not long ago somebody dragged me
> into his office and asked why e-mail so-and-so was all garbled.
> It turned out that the QP was not decoded due to a little NLCR
> in the header. Fairly new client software...
>
> Please, not again!
>
> > "Just send 8-bit"
>
> As I have said repeatedley: that's not what I'm suggesting.
> Please stop implying otherwise.
>
> Kind regards
> /kent k