Bob George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Which RFC pertains to mail content? I recall the old Usenet convention that
>was loosely enforced regarding quoted versus new content, and the length of
>signatures.
None of the RFCs pertains to mail content. You can write whatever you
want. Read the GNKSA document, which is posted regularly to newsrelated
newsgroups, and you'll find the RFCs mentioned that regard to the
_form_ of messages. You might say, "that's for Usenet news, not for
mail", however, the only difference between news and mail is 2
headerlines.
>
>Interestingly, when I use pine in a non-GUI Linux environment, it looks
>nearly identical if I tell it to quote the original message. Same with
>Netscape, also under Linux. Microsoft (and most other) products allow
>turning off of the feature, but the problem is users who don't bother to
>learn the program.
You are absolutely right. The keyword is "LEARN". (Btw., who's the
marketing genius that made people believe, they could do anything with
their computer without learning? They can use it "intuitively".)
To me it is not surprising that all programs insert the quoted text in
a similar way. The problem is that some of them allow you write your
*reply first* and *than append the quote* (and lots of junk). This is
contradictory to the way normal human brain works! (Therefore actually
noone should be in need of regulating this by RFC or Netiquette.)
>It's just as easy to do stupid stuff in other
>environments. This is hardly Microsoft-specific, either in format or
>practice.
You cannot be serious. I just can suggest to examine the header of
every misconcepted message you receive.
>The worst one might accuse Microsoft of is including a few extra
>header lines, but those are just as easily edited away and are often useful.
Normally I delete immediately such messages, but this time I preserved
one for you, as a parade example (I quote the relevant lines only):
-------------------------------------------------
From: "Alex Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FORUM: Formal Request for Consensus
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:19:06 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C09100.2A8EE810"
X-Priority: 1 (Highest)
X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: High
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C09100.2A8EE810
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hello Gang,
Did anyone catch the segment on 60 Minutes II on Venice yesterday evening
(CBS)? You may ask, what is the relevance of that topic to this forum? Good
question.
[Content snipped]
Best Regards From:
Alex Szabo :{)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alex Szabo, Information Technology Consultant <-- !!!!
Voice: (904) 781-0502 Fax: (904) 781-0044
Mobile: (904) 616-0079
Web Presence: http://www.alex-szabo.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C09100.2A8EE810
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef;
name="winmail.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="winmail.dat"
eJ8+IgYRAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy
b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAQABAAEGgAMADgAAANEHAgAHAAwAEwAAAAMAAwEB
A5AGAHQSAAAiAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgABAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAB4AcAAB
[SNIPPED!!]
------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C09100.2A8EE810--
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to my reader the effective content was 39%, the rest garbage.
I'm curious, how long you can remain so tolerant if you get messages
like above about a dozen a day -- for years!
>I find the willingness of folks to make up things to accuse Microsoft of
>pretty silly. MS is not my favorite company, and they have done plenty
>enough to warrant criticism, but to blame user laziness on them exclusively
>really puts the credibility of this list in question.
See my lines about learning above.
>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 don't accuse MS of such a conspiracy right now, until the moment I
learn that they have aquired the telco I use or have a significant
participation in it. But I state that sending out misconcepted messages
to my email-box and to the newsgroups I subscribed is directly robbing my
time and stealing my money!
>There are
>tons of new users around and they tend to do stupid things.
This rises another question in me: How long is a newbie a newbie? I've
been member of this list for more than 2 years and still could point
out the same people that have never taken the effort to trim that
damned footer or never bothered with editing the subject line in a
reply if they receive the digest.
PS: This was my last message to this list. IMO SURVPC survived its own
lifespan. We discuss here Win9x, Linux, the "entity of an OS" and other
rather philosophical questions, that are (IMO) absolutely not covered
by the original topic of the list. This led to the feeling that
SURVPC is neither useful nor entertaining enough to me anymore.
Good bye!
--
Tibor Mocsar
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
