On 02:16 PM 4/9/01, J C Lawrence wrote:
>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.
IMHO, anyone who has a digest needs to have the ability to bounce
(preferably back to the author) any message which uses the "digest subject
line" or which quotes the digest fronter or footer. This resolves every
problem I've encountered with improperly quoted digests being sent "to the
list", although it doesn't deal with broken attributions and
>Yup. Digests, of any form, are just a Bad Idea.
I'm glad to hear that someone else agrees. :-)