Hello Alexander & all fellow TBUDL members,
Friday, January 21, 2000, 4:27:58 PM, Alexander wrote in response to
my saying:
>> Interesting logic. I wonder how many other TUBDL subscribers share
>> that concern.
When Steve said:
>> SL> That technical requirement doesn't exist in email. I am
>> SL> [EMAIL PROTECTED] That is all that is needed to route mail to
>> SL> me. The name in front is a comment, nothing more. However, having
>> SL> a comment mismatched with an email address causes confusion, may
>> SL> be what people don't want, and is SEVERELY frowned upon.
He said:
AVK> I do. Two reasons:
AVK> 1. It's written in RFC822 and the succeeding ones;-)
These are established conventions then?
AVK> To put it in less technical way, all the data _but_ that inside
AVK> <...> is optional and is generally of a comment nature. Stricktly
AVK> speaking, the data enclosed in "..." quotes is a "string",
AVK> whereas the data in (...) is defined as "comment", but *both*
AVK> types of data can and might be omitted.
Understood.
AVK> In other words, these are not required. These are optional. But
AVK> this does _not_ mean that I can use them like I want. This is a
AVK> matter of netiquette. To USA residents: what about the
AVK> (technically, correct!) address:
AVK> "Bullp*nis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (well, my apologies, but I
AVK> had to make the point!)
But what TB is doing is making use of non-essential but also
non-confidential user supplied data. The supposition being that it's
there to be used. In the example given, to my knowledge, Mr. Clinton
doesn't provide non-essential comment you mentioned in the
configuration of his email client, and although one of his
correspondents may have had reason to add such a non-essential comment
for reasons of their own; while technically feasible, it is unlikely
that this was actually done.
Once again, I am dealing with this issue in logical terms, but logic
requires a point of departure and if an established convention exists
the contrary, I'd like to know more about it. I fail to see the
breech of net-etiquette in itself.
AVK> But well, I'd say, TB does something like that by default;-)
AVK> 2. As Steve has already pointed out, the addresses like
AVK> "Alexander V. Kiselev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> get filled into
AVK> the MRU list, where from TB gets them for autocompletion. This
AVK> *is* a _severe_ bug, regardless of what you think about it. And
AVK> since it is a bug, it *has* to be fixed.
That bugs must be fixed is a truism. If it's a bug, it must be fixed
or squashed, let live, industrialized or released in a field (if a
predator, pathogen or parasite of a pest). But it sounds like a design
choice though. What do Stef and Max say about it?
AVK> Personally, the second reason above is a major one for me.
Well, I can certainly respect that. Rest assured that you can count on
me to provide any moral support needed with regard to this matter.
There is no doubt in my mind that your contributions have been
fundamental in relation to achieving the progress all of us on TBUDL
desire and continue to strive for.
Douglas
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
