From: "Mike Dewhirst" <miked@dewhirst.com.au>
suse@rio.vg wrote:
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 01:28, ken wrote:
I'll say it again another way. One side is arguing that replying to the list makes more sense. The other side keeps coming back to a notion of what is "correct". Did you read the article I linked to? I'll give you the link again
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
The argument is entirely based upon what makes sense. No one talks about being more or less "correct", that's for the debate between top and bottom posting
I read it, and frankly it's a load of bollocks. His argument doesn't even make sense. He says "Reply-to-all" is better, but, in fact, that would probably send the e-mail twice to the author (once direct, once through the mailing list), and possibly screw up threads if the author then replies to the e-mail he got directly from the sender, rather than over the list...
But this guy sounds like he hasn't come anywhere near the 21st century.
This whole argument is pointless. It's like saying driving on the right or the left side of the road in different countries is "broken".
It is pointless because RFCs (Requests for *Comment*) are what pass for actual internet standards. Once RFCs have been published, unless they leave wiggle-room for future developments, money, time, blood, sweat and tears get invested accordingly. That is what locks them down.
Merely publishing an RFC does not make it an Internet Standard. Some RFCs have become Internet Standards and the IETF is a little dumb to let them remain as RFCs rather than formally making them standards. If we had to follow RFCs just because they were published you'd be speaking TCP/IP over homing pigeon relay at least some of the time. {^_^}