Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: Christian.Huitema@mirsa.inria.fr (Christian Huitema)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Re: RFC-1148/2: what about underlines
Message-ID: <9103140829.AA01872@jerry.inria.fr>
Date: 14 Mar 91 08:32:28 GMT
Lines: 26
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of 12 Mar 91 17:02:19 +0000.
             <1695.668797339@UK.AC.UCL.CS>

>If you really believe that quoted space is a problem on the Internet (I do
>not), then this document should be changed.  Otherwise, it should be used as
>a stick to get any broken implementations mended.

I guess that this is exactly where we differ. It is not a matter of belief to
state that quoted parts do pose a problem on the Internet -- it is a fact.
This is ill supported by many user agents on the TCP-IP internet, and is not
supported at all by several non TCP-IP mail networks. And I have a profound
dislike for the idea of having two "RFC-822" formats -- one on the "real"
Internet, and another one on USENET; for one thing, there is no clear boundary
between the two nets.

Your approach is, in my opinion, moralistic and dictatorial (-). Insisting
that users get a new mail software before they could use our wonderfully
specified X.400 to RFC-822 gateway is contradictory with the general rule of
"be tolerant with what you accept, conservative with what you send". By
specifying a conservative mapping between spaces and underlines, you decouple
the problem of gateways and user software.

To put it shortly, I dont think that it is the mission of a gateway
specification to provide "a stick to get any broken implementations mended".
On the contrary, I think that this approach will result in a lesser
acceptation of the specification, and in chaotic coordination of the
gateways.

Christian Huitema