"Heimo Claasen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Bob George - as much as I appreciate your contributions generally
> but this one of: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 was a bit too askew to let it pass
> like that.
>
> Your wrote:
> > Which RFC pertains to mail content?
>
> The thread was not about content but about format.
> To glue the question - why there is massive "overquoting" - to the
> content issue seems not very clean.
The thread was originally about uninstalling Internet Explorer, which led to
Outlook Express. As to my choice of the word "content", it was to
distinguish it from "headers" and the like defined in RFC822 and a wealth of
other worthy references. My point it that -- to the best of my knowledge --
there are no formally defined *standards* for quoting text, or other
*content* carried as the payload of e-mail. Admittedly, I haven't researched
the topic in depth, but if we're seriously going to accuse a company of
violating these standards, we ought to be able to cite them.
So (to the readership at large), what standards, if any, has Microsoft
violated by allowing quotation of a full message? How is this so different
than many other mail programs.
> Then, to shovel the problem into the shoes of those stupid users is a
> bit paternalistic, I'd think:
> > ... the problem is users who don't bother to learn the program.
Hmmm. I find it paternalistic to think that helpless users must be spoon-
fed. I don't have a big red sign telling me to use my turn signals while
driving, and so far there are no warning labels on the volume knob on my
stereo. Yet these are often abused or under-utilized. And hell, I could KILL
sombody in my car. OK, analogies get silly quickly <:)>and I admit that one
is, but there IS a menu item at the top of the Outlook Express screen, and
it does contain the word "Help". Underneath that item is a full-blown online
manual with full search capabilities. Short of bloating the box with an
environmentally unsound three binder set of documentation (remember the old
WordStar manuals that collected dust by the thousands?), what more could a
company be expected to provide? From that very online help regarding HTML
"enhancements": "Note that some of these options require that the
recipient's newsreader can read HTML-be aware that many newsreaders cannot."
Remember the days when a hardcopy manual was considered a form of copy
protection? Microsoft even makes it easy for software pirates to read the
fine manual by simply pressing [F1]!
> The least question to ask here is, does the (alsway "dumb/newbie" ?)
> user get a real/realistic chance to "learn" ?
Every time they want to do something, and any time they CARE to. I can
understand that starting out today there's just SO MUCH to be overwhelmed
by. BUT I do think that the user is ultimately responsible for the use of
the product. Microsoft Outlook, Pine and most other mail clients can be used
to send spam. Some folks seem to think multi-level marketing and the like
are wonderful, and absolutely LOVE to tell everyone they know. They also
don't read the manual. Who's responsible for sending spam?
> And connected with this: is there any effort/incentive done to make
> him/her "learn" ?
Most do learn after a hint or two. I personally use formatted mail at work,
but turn off those features here. My point is that the _users_ should learn
what's appropriate where. I'm sure that in this very list, Microsoft would
be accused of unfairly hindering freedom of expression if they turned OFF
the fancy-formatting features.
> [...]
> (Remember, the thread
> started with a remark if it was so difficult to avoid damage for
> others by using Outlook/OE.)
There was a definite thread (not yours necessarily , Heimo) that Microsoft
is to blame for the preponderance of over-quoting in messaging today. That
same "damage" can -- and is -- done using Pine and Netscape mail programs.
Some DO offer various enhancements, and if all the text you want to quote
can be selected in one action, they may arguably be superior. BUT, all are
frequently abused. NOT JUST MICROSOFT products.
> [...]
> I would have
> to bear with the qualification of being silly but I do not accept
> being qualified "willing" to be so, and "to make things up":
Heimo, not that I specifically did NOT respond to your message. I actually
quoted another verbatim that was an example. Perhaps I ... UNDER-quoted? :)
As to Microsoft programming, that's another thread. Again, I'm no fan of MS
per se...
> > I find the willingness of folks to make up things to accuse Microsoft
> > of pretty silly.... to blame user laziness on them
> > exclusively really puts the credibility of this list in question.
>
> Firstly, to invoke "the credibilty of this list" for reasons of one
> contribution is either demagogical or proposterous, and in any case an
> insult to the capacity of its readers to read/judge themselves.
There we disagree. In this very forum, it has been written that Microsoft is
responsible for (among other things):
* Abusing standards by allowing URLs to be mangled in various ways (in fact,
the standard ALLOWS for this).
* Not following standards for quoting of e-mail text and contributing to
e-mail glut by allowing quoting of full messages.
* Conspiring with telcos to drive up per-minute charges, though apparently
only outside of the US. (more below)
* Facilitating the spread of viruses through the use of Java. (not a
Microsoft technology)
* Facilitating the spread of viruses through multitasking. (not a Microsoft
technology)
* Turning legions of users into drooling idiots. (hehe. Not a Microsoft
technology)
OK, not exact quotes but C'MON people!!! Microsoft is NOT the inventor of
all evil, and there are plenty of others just as greedy. Only not as
successful at it. So yes, I feel pretty strongly that someone dropping in to
see what the list is about and happening upon one of the "Microsoft is
Satan" threads might not give the list a lot of credibility.
> Secondly, I didn't: neither did I make up things in order to blame MS,
> nor did I blame user laziness.
Nor did I say you did. Again, I was referring to another (of several)
messages. Perhaps they arrive in a different sequence for some?
> I have hundreds of MB of almost illegible
> mail to digest (and some of them stored, you are invited to look at it)
> from "high quality" lists where I only have to look at the header to
> know the reason for the (digesting) pain. This is sheer observation,
> not "make-up".
This issue is old enough to go back well before Microsoft ever though of
Outlook, much less giving anything away. The old Emily Postnews and newbie
Internet guides of the mid-to-late 1980's go into the issue at considerable
length. Excessive and useless quoting was NOT invented by Microsoft. It IS a
problem. But not one that the Evil Empire managed to start. Yes, a lot of
people use their software (it is free).
> [...]
> Now to the core of your diatribe - sorry, the following quote *does*
> justify this qualification:
Call it diatribe if you like, there's plenty enough of it to be had on this
list. Consider this my contribution to equal-time in the interest of
fairness.
> > To accuse Microsoft of consipiring with the telcos to drive up
> > costs, when pay-per-minute is pretty well gone in their largest market
> > really takes it past the limit.
>
> I didn't say "conspiration", I didn't even mean anything the like, and
> the mechanism of marked dominance are a bit more complicated than this.
No, no, no. I wasn't saying YOU, Heimo. (Sorry if you interpreted my message
as to YOU specifically!) I was responding to the LIST about statements that
had appeared recently ON THE LIST. If the comments were only to you, I'd
have used e-mail! Honest!
> [...] You have a product which is successfully selling (it helps, if
buyers
> do not have much other choice).
Yes, yes. And to some degree, those points have merit. BUT, in all of the
allegations against Microsoft recently levelled in one of the most expensive
and intensive court cases to date, I have not heard of anyone even
*remotely* suggesting (with any credibility) that Microsoft has conspired
with telcos to drive per-minute charges. Microsoft IS rotten in many ways,
but for us (collectively) to go around accusing them of every silly thing
only hides the real problems. Accuse them of lying and cheating, while using
the same tactics and... oh well. I don't think that speaks to objectivity.
> [...]
> (1.) an *uneven* redistribution. Sure, users get some (pleasure or even
> functional) "value" individually - which is what "the product" keeps
> selling[**] - but there is a massive transfer of monetary (or market)
> value from them (as group) to the "operators". This is measurable not
> even in monetary terms but even in technical such (see again [*]);
OK, who are the operators? Some shadow group? Can anyone "name names"? And
why didn't MS succeeded in the one country where they have perhaps the
largest monopoly of all? Why has bandwidth become cheaper? Why have
flat-rate plans for higher speed access become widespread? How does Standard
Oil benefit when filling up one's car costs a flat rate per month? I find
this particular allegation particularly annoying because until not too long
ago (OK, 10 years), I had the pleasure of paying exorbinant amounts of money
to the Deutsche Bundespost for telco service, and obscene amounts for
"approved" devices to connect to their lines. If MS is able to corrupt even
nationally-run PTTs, why did they stop? Why, in the Land of Microsoft, have
I never paid NEAR as much?
> [...]
> (3.) some empirical evidence that the "all-gain" model of endless growth
> (of ressources utilisation) would have material limits.
> Californians got a surprising reminder on that.[***]
Hehe, that IS a favorite topic of mine (being in Arizona), but definitely
off-topic. :) The hell with the environment, to arms! I have to go defend my
water and electricity!
> Finally, I find it a bit too easy, and definitely paternalistic, to
> declare newbies guilty because of their sheer existence; wouldn't it
> be the task of a programmer (and the firm that sells his product) to
> attract new clients ?
So will this ethical standard be applied equally and fairly to all, or only
those firms we don't like? If an Open Source software product is used under
essentially the same terms and conditions, should those authors be required
to somehow -- and I'm not quite sure what's been proposed -- make sure that
users are well trained? Are we talking about a written test? Licensing?
Government supervision (e-mail monitoring)?
> > There are tons of new users around and they tend to do stupid things.
>
> Well, so would the kid use the flashing lighter I give to her without
> telling her that I opened the gas pipe and what would happen if she
> plays with the gadget.
And if it were a small child that did it, I might understand the point. But
when it's a well educated, and fully literate adult, I think they deserve to
wind up on the Darwin Award page as this year's winner.
My point is that newbies WILL do things, often not knowing or caring what
the impact is. That's an issue with ANY product. Not just those produced by
a certain company. And for God's sake, please don't anybody (not YOU Heimo!
:) tell me that all users of those products are somehow deficient!
> Come on Bob, you have given some *excellent* examples here on this
> very list for how to enlighten people who asked questions - why would
> you defend some arrogant bullying firms for just *not* doing this ?
Because it takes the form of accusations that are plain out WRONG so often.
Who is helped by BAD information? How does perpetuation of these "urban
myths" of Microsoft wrongdoing help?
Consider this tirade my humble attempt at enlightenment on this subject. And
finally, becuase I like throwing the odd bomb as much as the next guy. :)
- Bob
(Hoping I quoted enough and used enough smileys)
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
