[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MIME based remailing commands
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 06:24:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email protected]>
Excerpts from mail: 12-Feb-95 Re: MIME based remailing co.. Rick
[email protected] (1544)
> Well, I have no idea why you think that MIME is an "atrocity" or
> "slime", but it is perfectly clear that you have no idea what it
> actually *is*, since "X-" headers have nothing whatsoever to do with
> MIME. The "X-" headers are defined by RFC 822, which has been the
> standard for Internet mail formats since 1982.
> You base a large conclusion on a small piece of data in combination
> with some poor duduction. Unless you are claiming that MIME violates
> RFC 822 with respect to the handling of X- headers you have made a
> number of false claims in the paragraph above.
A very interesting claim. Care to tell me what my "false claims" are,
or is it a secret?
One is your claim that ``"X-" headers have nothing whatsoever to do
with MIME.'' This was in response to my suggestion that such headers
were MIME-compliant. As I said previously, unless you are claiming
that MIME violates the RFC which you referenced, then these headers
are MIME compliant, as I suggested, rather than completely seperated
from MIME as you have suggested.
The other is that I ``have no idea what [MIME] is''. I may not know
as much as I should, by your judgement, however your claim is still
incorrect -- presumably you were more interested in being
inflammatory than accurate. Not completely out of place here . . . .
Really, there was nothing very secretive about my previous or current
presentation of the problems with your claims. For example, you might
note that the first one that I list is simply a rewording of the
message to which you most recently replied. What was it that was
unclear the first time? Or *are* you suggesting the MIME violates RFC
822? Or perhaps I'm just missing something subtle in your reasoning.
If so, could you elaborate?
Rick