IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: rfc1495

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Fri, 06 May 1994 03:10 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28768; 5 May 94 23:10 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28764; 5 May 94 23:10 EDT
Received: from survis.surfnet.nl by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17737; 5 May 94 23:10 EDT
Received: from WILMA.CS.UTK.EDU by survis.surfnet.nl with SMTP (PP) id <20824-0@survis.surfnet.nl>; Fri, 6 May 1994 04:58:53 +0200
Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9c-UTK) id WAA25240; Thu, 5 May 1994 22:57:46 -0400
Message-Id: <199405060257.WAA25240@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: "Carl S. Gutekunst" <csg@hideji.worldtalk.com>
cc: mime-mhs@surfnet.nl, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: rfc1495
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 May 1994 08:36:34 PDT." <9405051536.AA14697@hideji.worldtalk.com>
Date: Thu, 05 May 1994 22:57:45 -0400
X-Orig-Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu

> My personal opinion is that a gateway or MTA should never fragment a message
> without bilateral argeement that the next hop is capable of reassembling it.
> Otherwise, leave it up to the UAs to do fragmentation.

I'd state this even more strongly:   An MTA should never fragment a 
message unless it somehow knows that the recipient has MIME capability.  
Message/partial should only occasionally and at the sender's explicit
decision -- not just because an MTA thinks it's a good idea.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email