begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:04:14AM +0100: > > Just wondering why 1524 is so important to you...
You lost me. To the best of my knowledge, I have never discussed RFC1524 in this or any other mailing list, prior to this exchange. RFC1521 is important to me because 99.99% of MUAs on the Internet profess to comply with it, and because the most popular one doesn't actually do so, and thus it's users give me flack about their broken mailer's inability to read my messages. I've recently decided that it's insane for me to jump through hoops set by a company whose products I don't even purchase anymore, when I'm following 8.5-year-old standards. Ok, it's not a "standard" standard yet, but that argument is rendered moot when you stick a MIME header in your mails, which Outlook and Outlook Express do. That constitutes a stipulation to the standard as written. If they don't want to follow the standard, they can put "X-MSMIME" or something. What they're doing now is false advertising, and it's affecting me. I have to choose between spending a portion of my time responding to complaints, or ditching functionality. I choose to apportion that time so that as much of it as possible goes to talking to people with clue (like you), and as little as possible to people without clue who won't understand even if I wave the RFCs in their face. Karsten and I are working on something in that vein.
msg26136/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
