begin quoting what Rocco Rutte said on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 04:31:01PM +0100: > > The point is that there're lots of people having to use it at work. Even > if those people are familiar to the standards, what shall they do if > they're not abled to convince someone with the power of decission not to > use Outlook anymore (I am aware of the BOFH... but quiting a job because > of that is not a solution for everyone)?
We'll not use our work Outlook for sending Internet mail, and we'll send Internet mail that can't be read by Outlook people. And when they bitch, we'll send them standard disclaimers saying it's a problem with their mailer, and they can either fix it or not. Eventually enough of them will bitch to Microsoft, and Microsoft will fix their broke crap. I don't have a problem with Microsoft, I only have a problem with their broke crap. > Also, lots of people are just ordinary end-users. I do not want them to > read and fully understand the standard, it needs someone to tell them > (illustrated by some bad examples) why RFC1521 conformance is important. I tell them that every day, when they see emails that "contain nothing". Then I send them a standard disclaimer, telling them why it's their problem and not mine. Outlook users are damage. The Internet routes around damage. If we remember that philosophy, then either Microsoft will fix the damage, or Outlook users won't be part of the Internet. Either way, my true long-term goal, which is to sign my messages without being pestered by users of broken mailers, is advanced.
msg26164/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
