berndth at gmx.de
Thu Aug 9 22:49:58 CEST 2012
On Do, 09.08.2012 14:36, Colin Leroy wrote:
>Sure, that technically true, the RFC is vague enough and just gives
>The only thing is, developers who care follow that MAY and make their
>program automatically prefix replies with "Re: ", while those who don't
>give a shit make their program prefix with whatever comes to their
>minds, so they can next proceed to their next RFC-breakage or
Well, blaming Outlook is always a fun thing to do, I know.
In this particular case, however, I think the RFC is just messed up. It
defines some mixture of human-written free-form text and an optional
machine-interpretable part which humans are also supposed to understand
(and which is a creative and non-localizable abbreviation of a latin
phrase). I mean - wtf?! I can totally understand why some MUAs are not
using that mess. And then people are wondering about occasional hickups
in the real world? I'm actually suprised that it works rather well most
of the time.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Users