From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 95 12:33:25 PST
To: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com>
Subject: Re: MIME based remailing commands
In-Reply-To: <0jCxBn=0Eyt5AxShYL@nsb.fv.com>
Message-ID: <9502122031.AA23722@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


    Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 15:58:27 -0500 (EST)
    From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com>
    
    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.
    
    Perhaps you should learn what MIME is before you embarass yourself
    further.

Unless it has changed radically in the 6 months since I read all of
the RFCs that were then available (I believe that rtfm.mit.edu was my
source at the time), then I have already taken the step that you
suggest -- in fact, it is largely what caused me to form the opinions
that I have with respect to MIME.  It is possible for someone to find
ugliness where you find beauty without them necessarily being
uninformed.

I must admit that Perry's references to secure multi-parts make me
think that another review is in order.  I'm certainly not an expert,
but then nothing in what was readily available provided much
encouragement for further exploration.  However, I have learned enough
of what MIME is that I am not embarrased by your incorrect inferences.

			Rick