On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:01:06 -0500, Andrew Joyce <joyce@...> wrote:
> Bart wrote:
>  > *snip
>  >
>  > In the end, computers are a tool to make things you want to do work as
>  > simply as they can. You'll notice most people don't do what's technically
>  > possible, but what's *simple*. Laziness, Impatience, Hubris, anyone?:)
>  >
>  > I agree that this should be a supported client feature - but it isn't.
>  > Whatever the reason is, it's not going to be resolved, for now it
>  > clashes with people's intuition, and in many cases will probably make
>  > people work at something that could be automatic.
>  >
>  > *snip
> 
> For reference: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2369.html
> 
> I agree.  Let's screw trying to design and use standards.  Every client
> should pick and choose how to implement their features so that we can
> patchwork all our solutions onto the back-end servers.

I know, I know. I pretty much agree, even. I don't really like that email's so
old that's happening anyow. But in this particular case hardly destroys
convention - it arguably adheres to it in this case. And since client support
is -not- going to happen, adding a reply-to is the a hack of least resistance
solution. What exactly is so evil about it anyway?

--Bart

--
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list