E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists wrote:
123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789
123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789
hard wrapped at 60/61 chars.
( i.e. in the messages as handed in by MTA )
uwe
On 2/21/2013 12:31 AM, unruh wrote:
We do not need artificial obstacles to
communication-- there are enough real obstacles out there.
Yet you use the lame un...@invalid.ca address to post with. Seems that
obstacles are just fine with you, provided they're for your convenience.
Hate to get into a religious war here, but there is a hard, factual
standard here. RFC2646 which defines the MIME type text/plain format
parameter. If you are reading a message with content type text/plain and
format set to flowed, and a non-quoted line of words appears that is
too long (for
Having said that, I note that Ed Mischanko's mailer is not sending
text/plain flowed. So unruh has a point in that case.
On 2/21/2013 8:38 AM, Brian Utterback wrote:
Hate to get into a religious war here, but there is a hard, factual
standard here. RFC2646 which defines the MIME type
On 2/21/2013 8:52 AM, Brian Utterback wrote:
Having said that, I note that Ed Mischanko's mailer is not sending
text/plain flowed. So unruh has a point in that case.
On 2/21/2013 8:38 AM, Brian Utterback wrote:
Hate to get into a religious war here, but there is a hard, factual
standard here.
I know that it is an RFC, but it does say that it is standards track and
there doesn't seem to be a full standard already that covers the same
info. However, STD11 is not helpful in this argument. It is not covering
the presentation of the message, only its transport. I don't believe
that
Brian Utterback wrote:
RFC2646
Obsoleted by RFC3676
--
E-Mail Sent to this address blackl...@anitech-systems.com
will be added to the BlackLists.
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
On 02/21/13 14:45, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the
BlackLists wrote:
Brian Utterback wrote:
RFC2646
Obsoleted by RFC3676
Missed that because they changed the title. However, the new RFC doesn't
change the behavior I was referring to.
--
blu
Always code as if the guy
Brian Utterback wrote:
RFC 1305
Obsoleted by RFC5905.
--
E-Mail Sent to this address blackl...@anitech-systems.com
will be added to the BlackLists.
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
On 2/21/2013 2:16 PM, Brian Utterback wrote:
Now, if you don't like RFC2646, you might say it's not a standard and
that you won't follow it, but I don't think you should get a lot of
sympathy, just as if you decided that you were going to ignore RFC 1305
because it isn't a standard.
2646 has
On 2013-02-21, Mike S mi...@flatsurface.com wrote:
On 2/21/2013 8:52 AM, Brian Utterback wrote:
Having said that, I note that Ed Mischanko's mailer is not sending
text/plain flowed. So unruh has a point in that case.
On 2/21/2013 8:38 AM, Brian Utterback wrote:
Hate to get into a religious
On 2/21/2013 7:00 PM, unruh wrote:
Note that rmc 5322 is 2008. Many of the news readers are older than
that.
What's your point? Prior to 2008, RFC822 (1982) applied, which places no
restrictions on line length. Or, if you prefer, RFC2046 (MIME, from
1996), which also makes no restrictions.
On 2/21/2013 7:00 PM, unruh wrote:
Note that rmc 5322 is 2008. Many of the news readers are older than
that.
Another reason to refer to the RFC I quoted, which dates back to the 90's.
So, it would appear that is the poster uses format=flowed test, then
your reader should handle it. But if
Mike S wrote:
unruh wrote:
Note that rmc 5322 is 2008.
Many of the news readers are older than that.
What's your point? Prior to 2008, RFC822 (1982) applied,
which places no restrictions on line length.
Or, if you prefer, RFC2046 (MIME, from 1996),
which also makes no restrictions.
We
On 2013-02-22, Brian Utterback brian.utterb...@oracle.com wrote:
On 2/21/2013 7:00 PM, unruh wrote:
Note that rmc 5322 is 2008. Many of the news readers are older than
that.
Another reason to refer to the RFC I quoted, which dates back to the 90's.
So, it would appear that is the poster
On 2013-02-22, Mike S mi...@flatsurface.com wrote:
On 2/21/2013 7:00 PM, unruh wrote:
Note that rmc 5322 is 2008. Many of the news readers are older than
that.
What's your point? Prior to 2008, RFC822 (1982) applied, which places no
restrictions on line length. Or, if you prefer, RFC2046
16 matches
Mail list logo
