On Tuesday 06 November 2007 11:57, Chris Menzel wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:03:20AM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Surely as software professionals we can agree that standards are
> > generally a good thing and that this standard is no exception to
> > that rule. Shouldn't we thus conclude that using non-conformant
> > software is to be strongly discouraged?
>
> Sounds right to me. Is there a list of conformant/nonconformant
> clients somewhere, or a simple way to tell one from the other? I
> mostly use mutt, which I would bet big money is comformant, and OS
> X's Mail.app, which I'd *suspect* is conformant, but I just don't
> know. (01)
Well, I've been avoiding name-dropping, but Outlook and Outlook Express
are the culprits here. Their transgressions go beyond threading,
however, but I won't get into that, 'cause it probably constitutes
matters of taste. (02)
I don't know for a fact, but I'm sure Mutt is conformant. It's actually
not that hard to do, but for some reason Microsoft has remained
intransigent with Outlook / Outlook Express. (03)
I've only used KMail for the past several years, and it's compliant. (04)
> > Definitely a pet peeve of mine...
>
> No kidding? :-) (05)
Can you tell? (06)
> -chris (07)
Randall Schulz (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|