Re: Question regarding 8BITMIME / BINARYMIME

2018-03-12 Thread Bill Cole

On 12 Mar 2018, at 22:44, J Doe wrote:


Hi,

I have a question regarding 8BITMIME.

I know Postfix supports 8BITMIME and does not support BINARYMIME, but 
I am wondering why both 8BITMIME and BINARYMIME are ESMTP extensions.  
It would appear that 8BITMIME solves the same problem as BINARYMIME 
(allow 8-bit encoding of MIME), so why wasn’t BINARYMIME made 
obsolete in the RFC’s ?


They don't quite solve the same problem. See 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3030#section-1 and note that the ability 
to transport any 8-bit character as message content does not include the 
ability to transport any arbitrary stream of bits. 8BITMIME is really 
designed to avoid the need to use Base64 or Quoted-Printable for text 
email messages using extended 8-bit charsets or UTF-8.


Also - because 8BITMIME seems to solve the problem without CHUNKING, 
is that why Postfix supports it over BINARYMIME ?


I can't give a definitive answer to that, but it seems to me that the 
added complexity of BINARYMIME+CHUNKING implementation and support is 
too high a cost for what it provides over 8BITMIME.


Question regarding 8BITMIME / BINARYMIME

2018-03-12 Thread J Doe
Hi,

I have a question regarding 8BITMIME.

I know Postfix supports 8BITMIME and does not support BINARYMIME, but I am 
wondering why both 8BITMIME and BINARYMIME are ESMTP extensions.  It would 
appear that 8BITMIME solves the same problem as BINARYMIME (allow 8-bit 
encoding of MIME), so why wasn’t BINARYMIME made obsolete in the RFC’s ?

Also - because 8BITMIME seems to solve the problem without CHUNKING, is that 
why Postfix supports it over BINARYMIME ?

Thanks,

- J