> On Nov 17, 2021, at 9:50 AM, Bill Cole > <sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote: > > SpamAssassin rules are not laws in any sense. They do not prescribe or > proscribe any action. They do not reflect any sort of moral or ethical > judgment. They do not express or define technical correctness.
Isn't that exactly what we're discussing here? "Technical correctness"? Good internetworking implementations follow (to the extent they don't conflict with good security practices) Postel's Law, "be conservative in what you send, be liberal [but not naive] in what you accept". The point earlier in the thread was that using more encoding than is strictly necessary is not being "conservative in what you send", since it puts extra burden on the receiver to have a robust and complete implementation, and creates more opportunity to have an interoperability failure. Rereading: > Base64 encoding is only necessary if there are non-ASCII characters used. > UTF-8 is a superset of ASCII & it is normal for MUAs to not encode more than > needed. Exactly. Encoding is only used when and where necessary. Properly encoded HTML uses HTML-Entity naming, which is also ASCII-friendly, i.e. é instead of Latin1 é etc. or raw 8bit characters. -Philip
