Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:11:50PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Mail-Followup-To is the correct header to use.
> Mail-Followup-To isn't even a registered header! The closest thing to a
> registry that RFC822 implies is in the hands of SRI International is
the thing about internet standards such as the RFCs is that they tell
you what you *must* do, and what you *must not* do. as long as you
follow those rules faithfully you are free to implement as many other
good ideas as you like.
> (jpalme is as much of a member as one can be of the IETF RFC822 WG)
> which says that a "Followup-To:" header is from RFC 1036, but RFC 1036 is
> for USENET messages, not email. The only thing I can think of is that
> somebody liked the usenet idea of the followup-to: and just appended a
> mail on it. Just because somebody breaks the standards does NOT mean that
> everybody should.
well done! it only took you a few years to catch on. that header has
been in common usage for several years.
btw, it's interesting that you mention Jacob Palme. take a look at the
following document written by him in November 1997:
Network Working Group Jacob Palme
Internet Draft Stockholm University/KTH
Expires: May 1998 November 1997
> > > The difference between pine and mutt is that you KNOW the
> > > overflows in pine....
> > incorrect, again. the difference between mutt and pine is that
> > mutt is a decent piece of free software that works and follows the
> > relevant standards, while pine is a broken piece of non-free shit
> > which doesn't.
> Horsefeathers! The Mail-followup-to: header is NOT a part of the
> relevant standards!
that wasn't what i said, and i in no way meant to imply that failure to
implement an optional but well-documented and well-known header is what
makes pine broken. pine is broken in numerous other ways.