Re: [Exim] what is exim's reaction (rfc1652)

On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 12:33:25AM +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
| --
| søn, 2002-03-31 kl. 23:34 skrev dman:
|
| > Ok, it's considered a bug in the user agent.
|
| 'Course it ain't. Telnetting to a mailserver on port 25 from a command
| line interface don't constitute no user agent (or I'm a user agent).

Precisely, telnet is a potential User Agent (if it is used as such).
So are "echo" and "cat" and "here documents" :-).

| > I have no problem with simply being 8-bit clean rather than
| > pedantically following the "SMTP is 7-bit" definition by stripping the
| > high-order bit.
|
| No one's "stripping high order bit"s, otherwise I'd get a } or
| something, instead of an å (notice the beautiful quoted printable on
| your disk?). 8 Bit transparent is simply being snuffed by the unfriendly
| 7 bit server.

Umm, you just contradicted yourself, unless I'm mistaken. How would
you describe "snuffed" in technical terms? I think "clearing the high
order bit" is the way it is done. (clearing and stripping are
synonmous in this context) Specifically the C/C++/Java snippet
'a_byte &= 0xef ;' though I suppose 'a_byte |= 0x80 ;' would suffice
as well.

| > I was just wondering what the effect would be if a user agent whose
| > output wasn't 7-bit tried to send Tony a message with exim as the
| > system's mta. Apparently that's not a good thing to do.
|
| Well, it's better than not getting anything at all and wondering why
| nobody loves you any more.

Is it better for you to have to tell the person "I can't read your
message because your software isn't configured properly" or for the
software to do that automatically? (rhetorical question; exim's
implementation gives you the former right now)

-D

--

It took the computational power of three Commodore 64s to fly to the moon.
It takes at least a 486 to run Windows 95.
Something is wrong here.