Re: The Bcc Issue

> > we can do a bit better than that - we can also state that we design 
> > and test things to interoperate when they comply with the standards, 
> > and not (in general) under other conditions.  if someone writes or 
> > configures a protocol engine to deviate from the standards, he does 
> > so at the risk of degrading interoperability, and impairing the 
> > network for his own users and possibly for others.  very few users 
> > have the background and analysis skills to understand the 
> > implications of deviating from the standards.
> And when the standards are as clear as muck, don't we have an 
> obligation then?
> I can't count the number of communications snafus I've seen that I 
> would attribute to the bcc feature.  At the very least, we should 
> provide a clear model for implementors to follow and convey to users.  
> We certainly haven't done that yet, and I'm not sure how we can at 
> this point.
I do think we have an obligation to make specifications clear, and I do 
think it's possible to improve over what we currently have.
Keith