Robin S. Socha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> * Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How exactly is my MUA broken?
>
> * Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
And which RFC does this violate?
> * No reference headers (*GREAT* for breaking archives)
I've checked RFC 822 and it would appear that this is an optional item.
Thus, an MUA is not "broken" for not having it. Granted it might be nice
for the MUA to have this, but you can't have everything can you.
> * 6 attribution lines
Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC. If it is,
which one?
> * No citation leader
Once again. Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC. If
it is, which one?
> * Trailing blank line
And yet again. Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC.
If it is, which one?
Unless I'm wrong it would appear that your complaints are all optional or
preferential items. This being the case, the MUA is not broken.
> > I've included the original text of the message I've responded to.
>
> How very useful.
Some would see it as such.
> > I've simply chosen not to add anything to the beginning of each line
> > of the original message.
>
> Rather "I'm too fscking stupid to even find it among 2001 menues in
> Outlook", eh?
And I see that we are back to name calling. Again, how original. I can see
that you don't like Outlook. I don't much either, but there are reasons for
it (which have nothing to do with qmail so I won't bother listing them).
> > How does a request for common courtesy indicate a need for
> > professional help?
>
> In general or in your particular case?
Since you asked, in general.
> > What brings me to post? Simple, I like to help people learn more
> > about computing.
>
> The blind leading... C'mon, Jamin, you've had your 264 lines
> of fame. Now
> go away, will you? You're about to start a war you'll never
> understand.
And I see that once again you have resorted to name calling. Just because
you may have more expertise (for whatever reason) on a topic than someone
else does not in any way mean that the other person is blind. Additionally,
it does not ensure that the other person does not know more about some other
topic than you.
Jamin W. Collins
