[nSLUG] Please do not use Reply for new topics
jdkenney at gmail.com
Sun Oct 11 10:20:49 ADT 2009
Speed limits SHOULD be changed in many instances (but not all), the
biggest and most obvious example being in the US where the limit is
55mph that is universally ignored, both by motorists and by police
issuing speeding tickets. The rationale for that law (fuel
consumption) has long been proven to be bunk, even assuming everybody
adhered to it (which they don't).
If the RFC doesn't reflect actual human behaviour, it's also going to
be ignored. In this case it's not quite clear to me if you can
separate how the client behaves internally, from how the user users
it. Eg. Can you respect the RFC still without requiring a change in
behaviour of how the vast majority of people use e-mail.
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 8:20 PM, <jwark at eastlink.ca> wrote:
> Hi Everybody
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel Morrison <draker at gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, October 9, 2009 6:01 pm
> Subject: Re: [nSLUG] Please do not use Reply for new topics
>> 2009/10/9 Jack Warkentin <jwark at eastlink.ca>:
>> > I disagree. We have a system that works very well. What we need is for
>> > more people to understand it. I have used email for 15 years now (25+ if
>> > you count the internal COCOS system developed by BNR) but this is
>> > the first I have heard about how threads are managed by the Internet email
>> > system. Now that I know how threads work I will change my
>> > behaviour so as to live harmoniously within the system.
>> Can't agree with you -- and I think you proved my point. 15 years and
>> you didn't know. The number of people signing up to email for the
>> first time continues to grow every year (I think?). Another 15 years
>> for each of them to learn and understand (and care enough to take
>> action, thank you for that) on how to use it properly?
> I believe that what you are suggesting is akin to saying that, because people
> typically don't obey the speed limits, the speed limits should be changed.
> As I pointed out earlier, it is not the RFC that needs changing, it is the email clients.
> nSLUG mailing list
> nSLUG at nslug.ns.ca
More information about the nSLUG