Michael B. Trausch writes: > Now, _this_ is where the situation is _bad_. It's _awful_. If every > single ML worked in precisely the same way, there would be _zero_ > issues.
Well, yes. That's why there are RFCs, so that software and its users can interoperate over the Internet. You either really don't understand the relevant RFCs (the hypothesis I now favor) or you are advocating nonconformance. Both inadvertant and deliberate nonconformance are bad for the Internet, even if short-circuiting the RFC process seems like it would be real convenient to you and hundreds of millions of others right now. > Forgive me, y'all, for thinking I could talk from a user's point of > view. I suppose I should know better. We're *all* talking from the user's point of view. We all eat our own dogfood here, you know. The reason your proposals are getting treated so roughly is that they involve using *other* people's resources to serve *your* purpose, and non-conformance to an Internet standard that has been 40 years in the making. But the problem that you want to fix is that despite having all the information needed to DTRT, *your* MUA doesn't DWYM! The solution to that is obvious: fix your MUA, either by fixing it or by switching to a better one. Until you explain to us why that obvious solution is infeasible, you're going to get very little sympathy when you ask us (ie, wearing our list manager hats) to conform to a non-standard that you propose, in violation of an ancient and beloved real standard. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
