Re: Problems of Internationalized Mail Address eXtensions (IMAX)

At 20:13 03/02/27 +0100, Marc Mutz wrote:
>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.

I agree that it works better if we have both.
That just may mean that we need both.

Regards,    Martin.



>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