[linux-elitists] Mutt install 101

Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com
Wed Nov 12 00:54:14 PST 2003

Quoting Nathaniel Smith (njs@pobox.com):

> In defense of Pine, there are pretty good reasons to not support
> Mail-Followup-To, namely the fact that it's not standardized, was
> rejected from previous standardization efforts, and is reasonably
> likely to screw up any later attempts to get this Right in a standard.

I'm actually delighted at the irony of coming to the defence of Dan's

Mail-Followup-To is a good idea because it's far and away the best thing
we have.  I don't buy that it'll screw up any later attempts to get this
Right, in the event it doesn't work out:  A little contemplation of the
matter will suggest that such is a trivial implementation problem.

> The Pine developers:
>   http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&th=300d84522e787fe8&rnum=1


   Suppose Pine adopted Mail-Followup-To from that dead draft, and years
   later there was a standard definition for Mail-Followup-To that was
   incompatible with what Pine did.  We would be told that it was our fault
   for doing something non-standard and it would be proclaimed to the world
   that "Pine is non-compliant with Internet standards.

Then you issue a new release, genius!  And, if they wanted to be
particularly intelligent about it, they would offer a toggle in pinerc 
for the feature they implement going in.

> JWZ with some more background and opinion:
>   http://web.archive.org/web/20020612023303/http://lists.ximian.com/archives/public/evolution-hackers/2001-February/002104.html

Same thing the Pine guy said.  Every bit as bogus.

> None of which is to say that respecting the headers wouldn't be a
> polite thing to do, being as the intention is clear and one's personal
> choices do not create de facto standards.


Cheers,                     "All power is delightful, but absolute power
Rick Moen                    is absolutely delightful."  - Kenneth Tynan

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list