On Thursday, January 13, 2000, 12:29:05 AM, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Those that don't have C&P if needed. I fail to see why we should mangle
> our sigs for the inadequacies of another client.
I agree with you to some extent Steve, but I find your response puzzling, as
you seem to be one that strongly professes the use of Internet Standards. In
researching the subject a little, I find that RFC 2368 (at least my
understanding of it) refers to the MailTo: syntax as one of the standards
for E-Mail addresses, so it would appear, on the surface anyway, that only
Outlook and Eudora conform to that Standard.
Just to qualify my "agree with you to some extent" statement, you use
adjectives that puts a different slant on your writings. For instance, I
don't necessarily agree that putting Mailto: on an address _mangles_ the
signature, but obviously it's easier and much cleaner looking if we don't
have to. Lastly, why do you refer to both Outlook and Eudora as having
"inadequacies" in this respect, when they are only conforming to a Standard
by requiring the inclusion of the MailTo: URL?
I wish all Programs would either adhere to a Standard, or change an existing
one... hopefully to one that would NOT require the use of MailTo: to
designate a linked address.
Nick
--
-=Nick Andriash=-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Keys available from KeyServers
---
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
