On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 18:42, Daniel Barclay wrote: > > But, agreed on the premise "mail reader can't wrap =3D broken". > > Is broken really the right adjective? > > Those mail readers weren't broken (or called broken) when they were written, > and they haven't lost functionality since. Correct. What changed is the standards for brokenness. By _modern_ standards, a mail reader that does not wrap is considered broken, even if it was written when this behavior was perfectly acceptable. Alex. -- PGP Public Key: http://aoi.dyndns.org/~alex/pgp-public-key -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS d- s:++ a18 C++(++++)>$ UL+++(++++) P--- L+++>++++ E---- W+(+++) N- o-- K+ w--- !O M(+) V-- PS+++ PE-- Y+ PGP+(+++) t* 5-- X-- R tv b- DI D+++ G e h! !r y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part