On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 15:30 +0100, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > Hi WG, > > the topic of MSG encoding as well as its content (e.g. NUL and LF > characters) has not yet been solved. The past days, I've talked to a lot > of my friends not on this list and I have also looked at various ways to > solve the issue. Be prepared, this is another long mail, but I think it > is appropriate as this is our top issue left open. It is complex and it > requires a good amount of thinking, theory and arguments. I am trying to > convey a proposal and the facts it builds on in this mail.
I am convinced. Although I first preferred coding the character set in SD-ID variant over the Unicode BOM (simply because of its similarities to MIME), but I think not allowing a myriad of encodings (with their associated security risks) is a very nice thing to have. As I see we need a single utf8/undefined bit in the message, using BOM for this purpose is perfectly fine by me. -- Bazsi _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
