Would it be over-kill to also mention "non-RFC-servers compatability enabled" or similar in the James startup messages? There is so little displayed on the startup screen that it would certainly stand out. Just a thought.
Steve B. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Angus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 9:38 AM Subject: RE: Why does James reject email addresses with "_" in the hostname? > Serge: > > What's the value of turning this off? > > Everytime someone turns it on they learn why they had to, because an M$ > product doesn't comply with the RFC's, and we've provided the workaround as > a service to our users, not because we condone M$'s transgression. > In the real world we have to accept non-compliance by others, why not take > the opportunity to name and shame them? > > > The bar is already really really high. > > Don't I know it. So lets exert pressure against it getting worse. > > > How about instead publishing all > > the spec violations we've had to made, and the servers and clients that > > prompted us to do it? That would probably be a popular page. > > Yeah ok I like that, as long as we still implement these as options, if we > do I won't press for them to be off by default. > Ok? > > > > d. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
