nanog mailing list archives

Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in my MUA OT


From: "David Howe" <DaveHowe () gmx co uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:31:40 +0100


Eric A. Hall <ehall () ehsco com> was seen to declaim:
Nobody is forcing anybody to adopt it.
I think the point is people with non-compliant maillers delete mails
with attachments and no body on sight... sometimes, in an automated
rule. If you don't care that a percentage of your recipients don't ever
get to see your missives (and/or think you are infected with some sort
of virus) as long as those that use the same software as you do, then
you are in good company - its how most web designers seem to feel about 
Internet Explorer and flash.

OTOH, complaining to people who use the spec about problems
with your own mailer is pretty dumb.
As has already been pointed out, just because a standard exists is not a
good reason to use it if there is a more backwards-complaint standard
that does the same job - like clearsigning the message in the body.
As an (extreme) counter-example, there are standards I would be
compliant with if I had decided to start each paragraph with a pretty
illuminated capital (using a gif image), change the font to a nice,
bubbly font in ebcdic order (and include a AOT file for that) and then
wrap the whole thing up in mime multipart/related so that a *compliant*
reader could view it. however, I am fairly sure that would get me booted
from the list *and* would be megabytes of unreadable garbage to most of
the list (it is probably unreadable garbage now, but that is just their
personal opinion of my emails :)
Just because it is a standard, doesn't mean it is appropriate.


Current thread: