On Die, 2003-01-28 at 17:34, Shawn McMahon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:42:56PM -0500, Daniel Barclay said: > > > > 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. > > Yes; they were not liberal in what they accept. They assumed > everybody would do lines of less than 80 characters, and that > they'd always be run on screens of 80 characters width. > > Neither assumption was technically legitimate. They should have > accepted lines at least as long as the RFCs allowed as > technically possible, and should have accepted screens as small > as their intended platform allowed as technically possible. *yawn* Mailreaders should always do what we want them to. Debian should release more frequently. Opensource projects should all use totally patent-free code. Computers should just work. Everybody should just be nice. There should not be any wars. I should have a lot of money. The world should belong to me. See what I mean? (not that your mail can possibly add to the pointlessness of this thread, so please don't take it as an offense) cheers -- vbi -- featured product: the GNOME desktop - http://gnome.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part