On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 08:49:00AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Could you please add a In-Reply-To Header and Re: to the subject?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> hmm... I can't find any reference to this in RFC-822.
i wasn't speaking about i-r-p when mentioning RFC violations.
But in-reply-to is mentioned in 822:
4.6.2. IN-REPLY-TO
The contents of this field identify previous correspon-
dence which this message answers. Note that if message iden-
tifiers are used in this field, they must use the msg-id
specification format.
i-r-p and Re: are useful for software using threading. Not sending any
of these doesn't give a mail reader any chance to sort the message into
an old thread.
> > Well, i certainly hope you finish this process soon, since you
> > are violating the RFCs.
> nope, he is not.
Of course he is. Have a look at his "Date" line. 2 digit year,
violating a MUST clause in 2822 and a SHOULD in 1123.
> really! so until he uses a mailer you feel happy with he's not going to
> get help from you, well that attitude just sucks.
Actually i don't care.
I only care if people using broken software advertise their "solution".
> it's also in violation of an underlying principle: "be liberal in what you
> receive, be strict about what you send"
This is a principle for software.
Regards, Uwe
