From nsb@thumper.bellcore.com Tue Dec 24 08:52:04 1991
Received: from dimacs.rutgers.edu by akbar.cac.washington.edu
        (5.65/UW-NDC Revision: 2.23 ) id AA21889; Tue, 24 Dec 91 05:52:04 -0800
Received: by dimacs.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) 
        id AA09350; Tue, 24 Dec 91 08:14:38 EST
Received: from thumper.bellcore.com by dimacs.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) 
        id AA09346; Tue, 24 Dec 91 08:14:33 EST
Received: from greenbush.bellcore.com by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7)
        id <AA28328> for ietf-822@dimacs.rutgers.edu; Tue, 24 Dec 91 08:14:30 EST
Received: by greenbush.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7)
        id <AA22222> for ietf-822@dimacs.rutgers.edu; Tue, 24 Dec 91 08:14:29 EST
Received: from Messages.8.0.N.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.greenbush.galaxy.sun4.41
          via MS.5.6.greenbush.galaxy.sun4_41;
          Tue, 24 Dec 1991 08:14:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <sdJn_nq0M2YtNKaFtO@thumper.bellcore.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1991 08:14:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@thumper.bellcore.com>
X-Andrew-Message-Size: 747+0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
        boundary="Interpart_Boundary_AdJn:mu0M2YtJKaFh9AdJn:mu0M2YtJKaFk="
To: ietf-822@dimacs.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: a MIME-Version misfeature
Status: RO
This message has been composed in the 'multipart' format for extended
mail bodies.  If you are reading this prefix, your mail reader probably has
not yet been modified to understand the new format, and some of what follows
may look strange.  You may wish to look into upgrading your mail reader.
However, the first part of this message (immediately after the funny-looking
boundary line) is the text-only version of the message.  If you read that part
and skip the rest, you will probably understand the gist of the message.
--Interpart_Boundary_AdJn:mu0M2YtJKaFh9AdJn:mu0M2YtJKaFk=
I have no problem with changing the BNF to permit the period, as Mark
suggests.   However, I disagree violently with the following comment:
Excerpts from internet.ietf-822: 23-Dec-91 a MIME-Version misfeature
Mark Crispin@cac.washing (429*)
> All in all, it's starting to look like MIME-Version is not really all that
> well thought out and is in danger of being superfluous baggage.
Some kind of version number is, in my opinion, totally vital -- getting
rid of MIME-Version without some similar versioning mechanism to replace
it would be, for me, a real show-stopper.
By the way, this message is being sent by an experimental version of
Andrew I'm playing with.  I'd be interested in any comments you have on
its formatting, etc.  -- Nathaniel
--Interpart_Boundary_AdJn:mu0M2YtJKaFh9AdJn:mu0M2YtJKaFk=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
        boundary="Alternative_Boundary_8dJn:mu0M2Yt5KaFZ8AdJn:mu0M2Yt1KaFdA"
--Alternative_Boundary_8dJn:mu0M2Yt5KaFZ8AdJn:mu0M2Yt1KaFdA
Content-type: text/richtext
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have no problem with changing the BNF to permit the period, as Mark 
suggests.   However, I disagree violently with the following 
comment:<nl><nl><excerptedcaption>Excerpts from internet.ietf-822: 23-Dec-91 a 
MIME-Version misfeature Mark Crispin@cac.washing 
(429*)</excerptedcaption><nl><nl><quotation>All in all, it's starting to look 
like MIME-Version is not really all that<nl></quotation><quotation>well 
thought out and is in danger of being superfluous 
baggage.<nl></quotation><nl>Some kind of version number is, in my opinion, 
totally vital -- getting rid of MIME-Version without some similar versioning 
mechanism to replace it would be, for me, a real show-stopper.<nl><nl>By the 
way, this message is being sent by an experimental version of Andrew I'm 
playing with.  I'd be interested in any comments you have on its formatting, 
etc.  -- Nathaniel<nl>\
--Alternative_Boundary_8dJn:mu0M2Yt5KaFZ8AdJn:mu0M2Yt1KaFdA--
--Interpart_Boundary_AdJn:mu0M2YtJKaFh9AdJn:mu0M2YtJKaFk=
Content-type: application/andrew-inset
\begindata{text,1672608}
\textdsversion{12}
\template{messages}
I have no problem with changing the BNF to permit the period, as Mark 
suggests.   However, I disagree violently with the following comment:
\excerptedcaption{Excerpts from internet.ietf-822: 23-Dec-91 a MIME-Version 
misfeature Mark Crispin@cac.washing (429*)}
\quotation{All in all, it's starting to look like MIME-Version is not really 
all that
}\quotation{well thought out and is in danger of being superfluous baggage.
}
Some kind of version number is, in my opinion, totally vital -- getting rid of 
MIME-Version without some similar versioning mechanism to replace it would be, 
for me, a real show-stopper.
By the way, this message is being sent by an experimental version of Andrew 
I'm playing with.  I'd be interested in any comments you have on its 
formatting, etc.  -- Nathaniel
\enddata{text,1672608}
--Interpart_Boundary_AdJn:mu0M2YtJKaFh9AdJn:mu0M2YtJKaFk=--