W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

Re: Other transfer codings

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 10:03:03 -0800
To: Owen Rees <rtor@ansa.co.uk>
Cc: Peter J Churchyard <pjc@trusted.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9602201003.aa15375@paris.ics.uci.edu>
> The dot transparency protocol is an essential part of SMTP, as defined 
> in RFC821, it has not been 'dumped' and headers, MIME or otherwise, do 
> not replace it. On the contrary, RFC1123 emphasises this point very 
> explicitly in section 5.2.11 "Implementors MUST be sure that their mail 
> systems always add and delete periods to ensure message transparency." 
> The emphasis is probably because getting it right is a configurable 
> option if you use sendmail.

Actually, the emphasis is because they couldn't replace existing
gateways and other systems, even though the local system may be capable
of a better transport mechanism.  SMTP is stuck with it.  There is no
need for HTTP to repeat that mistake.

 ...Roy T. Fielding
    Department of Information & Computer Science    (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
    University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425    fax:+1(714)824-4056
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 1996 10:17:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:16 UTC