Sorry, Bob George - I still do not aggree:
> Sorry guys, but there's no evil Microsoft conspiracy. No spec is required,
> just some math. IP addresses are 32 bit values. Generally, we're used to
> "dotted decimal" notation, but many apps will take a straight decimal
> representation of a number (convert the IP bit-by-bit to binary, then
> decimal if you like) and use that.
So, this is "legal" addressing, yes ?
Now, spammers or no spammers who use the "trick": how come some
individual, obscure software garage with the name of Microsoft
decides suddenly that it's not "valid", and introduces a format of
writing this address which then would *only* work with their programs ?
> ... Enough people complained about this buglike-feature ...
(Bug"like" ? Was it correct, legal use of different number formats,
defined - or at least, not excluded - in public standards, or not ?)
> ...that Microsoft issued a fix for it. *As a result,
> depending on how old your copy of MSIE is, such URLs may or may not work.
No, no, there's other software in this world which would rightly consider
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" as valid, and consider "%1%2%3%4%5%@%7%8%9%10" evenly
right as something completely different: which promptly then would
not work; and could not work and is meant to choke when force-fed with
it - and *that's* the point.
Maybe the original definition of how to write URLs/URIs, written and
aggreed upon long time ago, may have proven ambiguous; but there are
common procedures to change standards. Your electricity Co wouldn't
dare to "fix" your 110 V juice to 687 V just like that, would they ?
// Heimo Claasen // <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // Brussels 1999-07-12
HomePage of ReRead - and much to read ==> http://www.inti.be/hammer
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
