> designed the product. So yes, that's a shortcoming of the product. But > you'll notice that the problem was actually solved without recoding > Outlook - you just had to change a setting on your end, instead of everyone > else on the list changing email clients.
I'd actually argue that this is a BAD thing. If something is broken, it should be fixed where the problem originally lies. The solution should not be to just live with the rest of the mail list using poorly configured products. That would be like saying that the easiest solution to a mail virus would be to just have bigger pipes so we could handle the traffic. The real issue is that Outlook CAN'T be fixed. And that is the problem. Aaron wrote the code to fix it, but Microsoft would rather have OTHER (competing) Products bend to fit the Microsoft way. And that's what has now happened. And because they have a monopoly (quoting..."instead of everyone else on the list") we all have to just accept that, and like it. That ends up with this whole argument. Instead of seeing that Microsoft wrote a flawed product, that needs to be fixed, the simplest solution is for the correctly functioning product, Kmail ;in this instance; to either spend their time changing a product that isn't broken to accomodate a flaw in a product that is broken, OR, (on a corporate level), to simply mandate Outlook across the board, so that interoperability doesn't matter. That is the problem. And in this case, it isn't even a serious problem. Kev.
