>The problem (as I see it) is that there is no requirements or even
>guidelines for MUAs. How's about we get all the mailing list manager
>people together, and bash out a set of requirements that a mailing
>list-friendly MUA will have. Then we either find a group to publish
>them, or else create our own group, and publish them ourselves.
But there ARE requirements and guidelines for MUAs. They're called RFCs :)
Of course, I know plenty of people choose to ignore RFCs. I can offer some
suggestions:
* Publicize it as much as possible that XYZ Company makes defective
software, or if you can't say "defective" say "non-compliant with generally
accepted Internet standards".
* Get companies (starting with your own) to adopt RFCs or similar as real
standards, bound by contractual agreements with an industry association.
Consumer electronics companies have done this for years. Everyone's VHS
players read tapes the same way. Everyone's CD players read CDs the same
way.
* Refuse to help people who insist on using broken software. This is a
matter of principle more than anything. The minute you start patching your
good server against their bad client, you've lost the battle and it's only
a matter of time before they ask you to fix this, and this, and this,
and...
* If that's not an option, support only the stuff you have to and make it
clear that in the future you won't be supporting broken code.
* If you're an ISP, don't distribute crappy software. Find something free
or tell your users what works and what doesn't.
I have no problem with software that has extra features to be able to take
advantage of more featureful servers. But those clients should be able to
handle servers without the features.
shag
