From: dawson@willard.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.bbs.waffle
Subject: Re: TRUNCATED BATCH(es)
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:05:28 GMT
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814

fenner@cmf.nrl.navy.mil (William C Fenner) writes:

> In article <0u3TPB2w165w@willard.UUCP> dawson@willard.UUCP writes:
> >I interpret these (and others within the document) entries to mean:
> >
> >  1)  A line is actually to be terminated by <CR><LF>.
> 
> Only in the context of SMTP.

?? Say what?  Says who?  and where?  Did I overlook that in my quick scan of
RFC-822?  Or is that in one of the others?

> 
> >  2)  There are no restrictions on what is in the content of the message
> >      body, other than it may be one or more lines containing ASCII chars.
> 
> This is true, according to the RFC.  However, general usage (which counts
> for a lot in the Internet world) is <80 character, lf-seperated lines,
> at least when stored locally or transferred via UUCP.

I know, common usage is the TRUE standard.  However, it'd be kinda nice to
have a COMMON standard (on paper, dammit) that should define how it all should
work.  I'm tired of getting dumped on for "non-RFC-compliant" message headers;
I'm even more tired of the same people telling me that my email is not working
with someone else's Unix/VMS software.  Seems to me that they (and we) should
adhere to one standard, on both counts.  What the hell good is a standard if
none of the software supports it?

As you say, this ain't (necessarily) the Internet.  So, why should general
usage (which counts .. in the Internet world) be of general concern?  Good
question to ask myself, as I'm the one who brought forth the reference to the
Internet RFC.

Even more to the point... is the cr-lf pair thingy, in the context of Waffle,
a bug, or is it a "feature" ???  If it is declared "bug," let those making
the accusations be sure to further state in what context.  I don't see much
use in making changes to Waffle if Waffle actually is correct and someone
else's broken Elm or whatever is really at fault.

> 
> >So, several questions:
> >
> >  1)  Is this the latest RFC with regard to Internet email?
> 
> Yes, but it sure doesn't tell the whole story.  RFC1123 has a few
> clarifications.

Unfortunately, I don't yet have a copy of that one.  Perhaps you could point
me to a source, and possibly also point me to the specific (or general)
clarifications to which you are referring.

> 
> >  2)  Do either of us really care, as neither of us is likely to implement a
> >      alternative Internet email messaging program?  Except, of course, to
> >      evaluate software that we may use...
> 
> Especially since very few of us (hi ralph!) are on the Internet.
> 
> That's another point -- RFC's only apply to the Internet.  Since UUCP
> connection != Internet, you can't point to an RFC and expect it to apply.

Yes yes yes yes.. uucp is not the Internet.  But, since whenever, the Internet
has worked as a backbone to the Usenet, which uses one transport mechanism or
another.  I'm having difficulty accepting this sort of rationalization.. just
what exactly does the TRANSPORT have to do with MESSAGE format?

I apologize for giving off whatever bad vibes I may; none of it directed at
you personally.

> 
>   Bill
> -- 
> Bill Fenner                  fenner@cmf.nrl.navy.mil


-- 
dawson@willard.UUCP (Willard Dawson)
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814