1 |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:01:06 -0500, Andrew Joyce <joyce@××××××××××××.ca> wrote: |
2 |
> Bart wrote: |
3 |
> > *snip |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > In the end, computers are a tool to make things you want to do work as |
6 |
> > simply as they can. You'll notice most people don't do what's technically |
7 |
> > possible, but what's *simple*. Laziness, Impatience, Hubris, anyone?:) |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > I agree that this should be a supported client feature - but it isn't. |
10 |
> > Whatever the reason is, it's not going to be resolved, for now it |
11 |
> > clashes with people's intuition, and in many cases will probably make |
12 |
> > people work at something that could be automatic. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > *snip |
15 |
> |
16 |
> For reference: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2369.html |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I agree. Let's screw trying to design and use standards. Every client |
19 |
> should pick and choose how to implement their features so that we can |
20 |
> patchwork all our solutions onto the back-end servers. |
21 |
|
22 |
I know, I know. I pretty much agree, even. I don't really like that email's so |
23 |
old that's happening anyow. But in this particular case hardly destroys |
24 |
convention - it arguably adheres to it in this case. And since client support |
25 |
is -not- going to happen, adding a reply-to is the a hack of least resistance |
26 |
solution. What exactly is so evil about it anyway? |
27 |
|
28 |
--Bart |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |