Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABB464FD8F for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:02:02 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38522-04 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:01:59 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.kkmfg.com (mail.kkmfg.com [66.178.243.109]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB4264FD8D for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:01:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [66.178.243.106]) by mail.kkmfg.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B1E77E402 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:09:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4900CA27.6060800@kkmfg.com> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:01:59 -0400 From: Collin Kidder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Annoying Reply-To References: <200810231701.m9NH1ML21995@momjian.us> <200810232009.04806.clist@uah.es> <4900C30A.8030604@kkmfg.com> <200810232046.54731.clist@uah.es> In-Reply-To: <200810232046.54731.clist@uah.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 081023-0, 10/23/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200810/1045 X-Sequence-Number: 139294 Angel Alvarez wrote: > Well > > but the RFC's were in fact prior to thunderbird > So for he most of its life, when few people was using it, > Thiunderbird was a sad example of your botched attempt of creating a > standar of NOT FOLLOWING THE RFC's... > But, as I mentioned, nobody cares about this particular standard. In my opinion a standard which is totally ignored by almost everyone is effectively dead and worthless. > Well, also M$ thought they invented internet so its a common mistake. > I thought that was Al Gore that invented the internet. ;-) > May be you can push Thunderbird guys a bit to include a little more funcionailty > other than complaining others that try to follow what to seemed to be the right way. > > Are we going to try be standars compliant or we keep trying to reinvent the wheel? > > Poor RFC people, what a waste of time... > Standards are all well and good but anything should be evaluated for it's utility. If a standard is undesirable then it's undesirable. Most mailing lists do not exhibit the same behavior as this list not because they are all ignorant of the standard but because they feel that following the standard is not desirable. I'm perfectly fine to follow the convention of this list. Some lists like top posting. Not this one. That's ok, I'll bottom or interleaved post. All I'm saying is that one cannot look to standards as gospel and disengage their brains. It's perfectly acceptable to say 'this standard sucks!' And so, I along with a couple of other people from this list, say 'this standard sucks.'