Re: my 2 cents worth

Michael D'Errico <> Tue, 07 June 1994 22:35 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20071; 7 Jun 94 18:35 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20067; 7 Jun 94 18:35 EDT
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19645; 7 Jun 94 18:35 EDT
Received: (from postman@localhost) by (8.6.7/8.6.6) id SAA03881; Tue, 7 Jun 1994 18:29:36 -0400
Received: via switchmail for; Tue, 7 Jun 1994 18:29:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from via qmail ID </afs/>; Tue, 7 Jun 1994 18:28:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.7/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA06033 for <>; Tue, 7 Jun 1994 18:28:11 -0400
Received: from rome ( []) by with ESMTP id AAA3890 for <>; Tue, 7 Jun 1994 15:28:06 -0700
Subject: Re: my 2 cents worth
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 1994 15:28:05 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Michael D'Errico <>
Message-ID: <>


I'm terribly sorry!  I misinterpreted what you were trying to say, and
my response was unwarranted.  You meant that the link might not be TCP,
but a serial line or something similar, right?

With foot in mouth,

Michael D'Errico

>>On Tue, 7 Jun 1994, Michael D'Errico wrote:
>>> I think that characters from Base64 are too restrictive.  Base64 exists
>>> because of the need to gateway messages between different mail systems,
>>> some of which have horrible constraints.  With POP, you have an 8-bit
>>> connection between client and server to work with.
>>I think the premise that POP implies an 8 bit path between ends is a
>>little dangerous. In the absence of words to the contrary in the RFC I'd 
>>assume printable ascii and very selected controls.
>Your selective quoting suggests that I wanted to allow 8bit characters
>in the unique identifiers.  I made no such statement, and if you quoted
>my next sentence that would be clear.  I wrote, "I think that Steve
>Dorner's suggestion to limit the uid's to characters in the range 0x21
>to 0x7e (printable 7-bit ASCII except space) is a good one."