"Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ummm, Mutt *does* sent the message body as text/plain, and the content-type
> of the entire message is multipart/signed. Not sure what you're talking
> about here. The content-type of the signature is
> application/pgp-signature, which should just be ignored by MUAs that don't
> understand RFC2015.
That's assuming they recognize multipart/signed as containing parts
that can be displayed. The entire problem is that Eudora et al. do
not---multipart/signed is unrecognized, so the entire message is
treated as unopenable and displayed as an attachment.
> And I hope they never add your patch, because people who use broken MUAs
> need to suffer, because they're not playing nice with the rest of us.
I hope you don't mean this. I don't think there is a Windows MUA that
supports RFC2015 at all---are you saying that all Windows users need
to suffer? I don't like Windows, but lots of people just can't or
don't want to handle anything else.
And speaking of not playing nicely, what do you call "...people who
use broken MUAs need to suffer..." ?
> Thanks, but no thanks, I will *not* break my own MUA to help other people
> continue using their own broken MUAs. The Internet is based on standards,
> and it's been too long that we've been suffering for those who break the
> standards. Witness, for instance, all the pipes that are clogged with
> traffic from Windows boxes because they fast start too fast due to their
> broken implementations of PGP. I am *sick* and *tired* of people telling
> me that I'm somehow sending my messages as attachments when their
> content-disposition is inline making them *not* attachments and the
> accusors obviously don't have the first clue about MIME works.
>
> Sorry, I'm just tired, and I want this crap to end. Tim May seems to think
> you "acknowledged that we were sending our messages as attachments" and now
> considers that carte blanche to filter out RFC2015 messages. He can do
> what he likes, but I am upset that he somehow now feels morally justified
> doing that due to your harmless little hack.
The Internet is based on _suggested_ standards such as RFC2015 (note
its disposition---it's not an official standard). No one is forced to
comply with them, and those who wish to communicate effectively do
their best to use their software in such a way as to be able to do so.
It is obvious that you have no wish for the majority of people to be
able to read your mail, as you refuse to acknowledge that your
messages are not in a format that people support. You hide behind
RFC2015, saying "look, I'm following the standard. I must be right."
The fact is, there's no "right." It comes down to what you're trying
to accomplish. If you're interested in pissing people off and being
ignored, then you're doing OK. Otherwise, you might consider backing
down on this one. The only thing you're going to acheive is an
inability to communicate with the majority of internet users.
--
Riad Wahby
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIT VI-2/A 2002
5105
