From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 18:28:51 PST
To: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com>
Subject: Re: MIME based remailing commands
In-Reply-To: <ojDo69v0Eyt50xSXkP@nsb.fv.com>
Message-ID: <9502140226.AA11393@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


    Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 06:24:57 -0500 (EST)
    From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com>
    
    Excerpts from mail: 12-Feb-95 Re: MIME based remailing co.. Rick
    Busdiecker@lehman.c (1544)
    
    >     Well, I have no idea why you think that MIME is an "atrocity" or
    >     "slime", but it is perfectly clear that you have no idea what it
    >     actually *is*, since "X-" headers have nothing whatsoever to do with
    >     MIME.  The "X-" headers are defined by RFC 822, which has been the
    >     standard for Internet mail formats since 1982.
    
    > You base a large conclusion on a small piece of data in combination
    > with some poor duduction.  Unless you are claiming that MIME violates
    > RFC 822 with respect to the handling of X- headers you have made a
    > number of false claims in the paragraph above.
    
    A very interesting claim.  Care to tell me what my "false claims" are,
    or is it a secret?

One is your claim that ``"X-" headers have nothing whatsoever to do
with MIME.''  This was in response to my suggestion that such headers
were MIME-compliant.  As I said previously, unless you are claiming
that MIME violates the RFC which you referenced, then these headers
are MIME compliant, as I suggested, rather than completely seperated
from MIME as you have suggested.

The other is that I ``have no idea what [MIME] is''.  I may not know
as much as I should, by your judgement, however your claim is still
incorrect -- presumably you were more interested in being
inflammatory than accurate.  Not completely out of place here . . . .

Really, there was nothing very secretive about my previous or current
presentation of the problems with your claims.  For example, you might
note that the first one that I list is simply a rewording of the
message to which you most recently replied.  What was it that was
unclear the first time?  Or *are* you suggesting the MIME violates RFC
822?  Or perhaps I'm just missing something subtle in your reasoning.
If so, could you elaborate?

			Rick