On 08/11/2007, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 08/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > In fact it is not. RFC 1855 says > > > > "You *may* shorten the message and quote only relevant parts, but be > > sure you give proper attribution. " > > > > http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html > > > > Please stop making up your own rules and then calling them > > "netiquette". > > > > Thank you kindly. > > > > From the first paragraph of your own link: > "This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind" > > So why should anyone follow someone else's arbitraty rules instead of > their own? Just because it has an official sounding name? > I'll stick with my own, totally random definition of netiquette thanks, > it's no better nor any worse than any one else's. > > Vijay. >
That's more netanarchy than netiquette, surely? But yes, you are right, the document is not a standard, just a recommendation. But it is the origination of "netiquette" - the document is dated October 1995, and is part of the same RFC that define almost everything else on the Internet - this email comes to you via RFC822, for example. Perhaps it just a physiological deflection from someone at an organization in a state of crisis? It seems poor form for list for developers to have a Man From Auntie trying to impose their own personal rules. But I don't mean to be rude or come across as excessively intemperate, but I can't be object to an arbitrary extension of the lists' rules. Especially as we have been over this several times already. > > > -- Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
