Re: Problems of Internationalized Mail Address eXtensions (IMAX)

On Thursday 27 February 2003 05:37, Dan Kohn wrote:
<snip>
> The difference, I believe, is
> that 8BitMIME provides a 33% bandwidth reduction when it can be used
> end-to-end, at the cost of requiring base64 transformations when
> encountering a non-compliant MTA or MUA.
<snip>

The big difference of 8bitmime vs. any IMA-enabling SMTP extension is 
that the former has 8bit CTE as it's companion in rfc2822 
serializations, while the latter has nothing like that.

Also, 8BITMIME makes it easier for the MIA[1] (doesn't need to apply CTE 
in certain situations anymore), while IMA-SMTP extensions that exist in 
a universe of their own (ie. not backed by the same structure in 
rfc2822 serializations) don't. If a MIA wants to use the IMA-SMTP 
extension, then it doesn't _save_ a conversion (8bit->qp/b64 as is the 
case in 8BITMIME), but needs to _add_ one (IMAA->IMAX). Why would a MIA 
want to use the extension if it was more work?

[1] MIA = Message Injection Agent

-- 
The illegal we do immediately.
The unconstitutional takes a bit longer.            -- Henry Kissinger

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+XmOE3oWD+L2/6DgRArtvAKC71O4dylXrRLnDLd1LsquZCTjwwQCdHrv+
VPfn8zLlJaNYve3h+CNJdwc=
=0FFc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----