On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:35:41 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 21:21 +0800, Not Zed wrote: >> Still, i'm extremely loathe to, since it is a clear breakage of a pretty >> simple set of rules from a not-particularly complex rfc. Seriously, MS >> should know better, for such a fundamental issue. We've had issues with >> rfc compliance in that code and fixed it, i'm sure they can too. > > Whatever happened to "be strict in what you send and flexible in what you > accept"? (I'm paraphrasing, but that was once the golden rule of the > Internet). >
Here here. I agree with reading the specs and that m$ is total crap. But... when the mail comes in and the title is all junk (yes it happens to me alot) and m$ users, who have no idea about specs or code, see this then their response is to laugh and comment on what a piece of sh%t linux and evolution is. "It doesn't happen in outlook!" i hear them say. Evolution's lack of acceptance to m$ sh%t makes evolution look bad not outlook! Simple but true. Mick. -- <BR/> "The man who moved a mountain is the one who started taking away the small stones." Old Chinese Proverb <BR/> --- <a href=http://www.harryspractice.com.au>Harry's Practice</a> --- _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
