Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3232 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] [OT] Proposed SuSE List Etiquette
- From: William Gallafent <william@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:32:41 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <200608141132.55444.william@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Monday 14 August 2006 10:00, jdow wrote:
> It does not matter. RFC 2822 is not a standard. It is only
> a draft standard that cannot reach concensus.
It's actually a "proposed standard", which is less far
advanced than "draft standard" (I think). It is,
nevertheless, the best available document describing how
things work at the moment.
> Insisting on people obeying ridiculous rules is stupid.
I agree, and I haven't noticed anybody insisting that anyone
else follows any ridiculous rules. The observation has
simply been made that this list is configured according to
the closest thing to a standard which _does_ exist, and
which is likely eventually to become a standard. Many people
are using mail clients which are deficient with respect to
another long-lived _proposed_ standard (RFC2369), and
suggest that the list should deviate from RFC2822 (by
setting Reply-To despite not being the author of the
message) in order to save them one click until their mail
client implements appropriate handling of the RFC2369
headers.
I'm sure well-reasoned suggestions for the modification of
the meaning of Reply-To (which would have to include
changing it from an originator header to a resent or trace
header, I imagine) in future RFCs designed to supersede
RFC2822 will be welcomed by those drafting those documents.
A legal analogy: If you don't like a legal bill before it
becomes an act, then lobby democratically to have it altered
before it's made law; if you don't like a law which has
already been passed, then lobby to have it rescinded or
superseded; in the mean time, you may choose to break it or
abide by it, as may everybody else. The owner of the list
has chosen to abide by the closest thing to a law for email
that exists so far.
The internet is very young, so many areas do not have any
"laws" that have yet been passed; they are still only
proposed. It's not "illegal" to deviate from a proposed
standard. To avoid chaos, though, and to promote
interoperability, it's advisable to abide by the proposed
"laws" which do exist, and it's helpful to suggest
improvements to them which will ensure that when, in the
fullness of time, they become standards, they do indeed
reflect the needs and desires of those whom they affect,
viz: us. So, suggest away.
> It does not matter. RFC 2822 is not a standard. It is only
> a draft standard that cannot reach concensus.
It's actually a "proposed standard", which is less far
advanced than "draft standard" (I think). It is,
nevertheless, the best available document describing how
things work at the moment.
> Insisting on people obeying ridiculous rules is stupid.
I agree, and I haven't noticed anybody insisting that anyone
else follows any ridiculous rules. The observation has
simply been made that this list is configured according to
the closest thing to a standard which _does_ exist, and
which is likely eventually to become a standard. Many people
are using mail clients which are deficient with respect to
another long-lived _proposed_ standard (RFC2369), and
suggest that the list should deviate from RFC2822 (by
setting Reply-To despite not being the author of the
message) in order to save them one click until their mail
client implements appropriate handling of the RFC2369
headers.
I'm sure well-reasoned suggestions for the modification of
the meaning of Reply-To (which would have to include
changing it from an originator header to a resent or trace
header, I imagine) in future RFCs designed to supersede
RFC2822 will be welcomed by those drafting those documents.
A legal analogy: If you don't like a legal bill before it
becomes an act, then lobby democratically to have it altered
before it's made law; if you don't like a law which has
already been passed, then lobby to have it rescinded or
superseded; in the mean time, you may choose to break it or
abide by it, as may everybody else. The owner of the list
has chosen to abide by the closest thing to a law for email
that exists so far.
The internet is very young, so many areas do not have any
"laws" that have yet been passed; they are still only
proposed. It's not "illegal" to deviate from a proposed
standard. To avoid chaos, though, and to promote
interoperability, it's advisable to abide by the proposed
"laws" which do exist, and it's helpful to suggest
improvements to them which will ensure that when, in the
fullness of time, they become standards, they do indeed
reflect the needs and desires of those whom they affect,
viz: us. So, suggest away.
| < Previous | Next > |