On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:24:57 -0400
Charlie Summers <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Agreed completely. But then, you're biting yourself in the rear
> making that argument, since if those, "clicky-clicky graphic mail
> clients" to which you refer, which are the _majority_ of people
> receiving the digests (outside some technically-specifific mailing
> lists), CANNOT handle them, or do not handle them CORRECTLY, then
> again why use it?
This is actually one of the arguments I use to the effect taht
digests are a Bad Idea in the first place. All the error conditions
for digests are an order of magnitude worse for digest members,
encluding over quoting, references:/in-reply-to: threading/headers,
quote attributions, subject lines etc.
> You yourself suggested the standard was non-specific and open to
> intepretation; should clients be forced to "hew" to every
> conceivable intepretation?
At this point while there is flexibility and interpretation in the
standard, it actually pretty clear, and doing an even half-way job
of handling MIME digests is not difficult (I've written MUA code to
properly display them twice now for different clients).
> By your own argument, if the people _can't_ actually read them (or
> not without jumping through hoops), it should _not_ be used.
Yup. Digests, of any form, are just a Bad Idea.
J C Lawrence email@example.com
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--