Thu, 22 Feb 1996 09:36:06 CST
|
> ... sending an
>unencoded ASCII control character in an e-mail message and expecting it
>to be unaltered sounds *very* optimistic to me. ...
Eric's right. You can't expect <ESC> to survive even in cases
where LISTSERV(tm) or another list processor is NOT involved.
> ... Surely there must be an option to encode the
>message using MIME. ...
But, of course! At the very least, something with embedded
<ESC> characters should be Q-P (quoted-printable) encoded. Personally,
I despise Q-P and would use Base 64, but some people fear the 3:4
increase in the size of the message. I'd counter that "This is 1996!";
as Nathaniel Borenstein said, "Memory is cheap; bandwidth is cheaper.".
We can afford a 25% overhead for correspondence class traffic if it
ensures delivery.
> Eric
--
Rick Troth, BMC Software, Inc. <[log in to unmask]> <USNMNEWN@IBMMAIL>
2101 City West Blvd., Houston, Texas, USA, 77042 1-800-841-2031
* T H E B E S T L I T T L E S O F T W A R E H O U S E I N T E X A S *
DMSINI1255T
|
|
|