<off-topic>
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote in
<C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BEB99(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>:
The email system in use has never been fully RFC compliant.RFC 2822 was
an attempt to rectify that problem, twenty years after the fact.
I agree with above, but I note that it seems to contradict same author's
earlier statement (below). Either we truly agrees that supporting RFC2822
(no matter if its "proposed" or "draft" statement right now) is important
towards fixing problems with email non-comliance or we continue to be in
the 80s world with positions like this:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote in
<C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BEB98(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>:
I am not going to use a different email client to post to this list, the
references field is NOT mandatory. And a RIM device is in any case not
going to support anything other than top posting. And in any case RFC
2822 is NOT an IETF standard while RFC 822 is. I have a standards
compliant email client, folk who demand support for Draft standards
will be ignored.
P.S. As a frequent top-poster myself, I note that it is inappropriate
to critisize this practice simply because one does not use it. The
practice is not against any standards and as frequent readers of the
email list are expected to have already read message being replied to
they cat actually benefit from not having to scroll through bunch of ">>>"
first. Top-posting also allows to designate when you're replying to
entire email as opposed to when replying to specific parts of the email
in which case buttom-posting is more favorable to clearly designate the
part being replied to. Both conventions have their own use in email world.
</off-topic>
---
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net