Re: [ietf-smtp] [Proposal] confusing parts of the mail system, was 250-MARKDOWN

[Gene Hightower <[e-mail]>]

On 10/01/2019 08.03, Ned Freed wrote:

>> On 09/01/2019 06.35, John Levine wrote:
>
>>> My mail server doesn't support or understand any media types at all.
>>> MIME and media types are all handled in the MUA.
>
>> I agree, except for BINARYMIME: the one MIME type advertised in the
>> greeting stage of ESMTP.
>
> Binary is a content transfer encoding, not a media type.

Yes, correction: transfer encoding, not media type.

Let me try to restate my point using a few more words.

The area where MTA (the “mail server” from above) software needs to
announce support for a protocol feature to enable features at the
level of the message body is CHUNKING and BINARYMIME, RFC 3030.

If many of the leading figures in the email world can engage in a
lively discussion about a proposed MARKDOWN extension to SMTP, I
thought I'd try to raise some interest in BINARYMIME.

On 10/01/2019 08.03, Ned Freed wrote:

> But the availability of the technology doesn't mean people will use
> it. The asessment of most seems to be that the benefits don't
> outweigh the costs.

First step is CHUNKING; small benefit, modest cost.  Involves MTAs.

Next step is BINARYMIME; much larger benefit, much larger cost.
Involves storage formats (no mbox) and IMAP software and MUAs; the
whole email ecosystem.

We know CHUNKING is doable, Microsoft and Google both do it.
(I also do it.)

Question is, is BINARYMIME doable?  Or a lost cause?