>>>>> "RK" == Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RK> Whether you endorse it or not doesn't matter. You're expected to abide
RK> by it.
Sorry, but this does not allow for the possibility of stupid RFCs. They do
exist. Should I be shot for not complying with 1149? OK, not fair, but it
is possible that an RFC specifies something dumb or unworkable in practise,
or that it just isn't clear.
RK> There are a heck of a lot of RFCs that *I* don't endorse either, but I
RK> am expected to write software which complies with them.
Well, before we freak here, lets be sure of one thing: the RFC is unclear.
My interpretation is that it requires MLM software to sit at -request. (I
really dislike the implication, but that's what I think it tells me to do.)
Others hold that it just has to go somewhere; either the list owner or the
MLM can sit there. Still others hold (by a combination of 2142 and 1211)
that only the owner can sit there and software is forbidden from doing so.
So we can't say if the behavior of an MLM is wrong or not, because we can't
even agree on what the RFC says. Now, Eric will continue to make software
that sends -request to the user and uses other addresses. This is bad
according to what I think the RFC says. Is it bad according to what you
think the RFC says? What about what Eric thinks it says? (Eric, I get the
feeling that you think it just might mean what I think it means, and that
bothers you.) (No Princess Bride quotes here, please.)
RK> Then L-Soft's software will be considered in violation of Internet
RK> standards, and I will recommend to every list manager, end user,
RK> network adminstrator and everyone else that I come into contact with
RK> that they avoid it or remove it until such time as it complies with
RK> this RFC.
By who's interpretation of said standard? We have no supreme court to turn
to, you know. You shouldn't try to appoint yourself chief justice.
But before slamming Eric's product, why not say what you think the RFC
says? Please don't just take my word for it. This thread would be
meaningless if you listened to Roger instead.
RK> I find your attitude incredibly arrogant. How dare you willfully
RK> distribute a product which you *know* violates one of the most relevant
RK> RFCs?
Hypotheticals are not generally useful, but here's one anyway: someone
drafts an RFC specifying MLM command syntax. They choose the syntax of
<Insert MLM you don't run/like/maintain here>. How dare you put out
another version of your MLM that doesn't alienate all of the people who
currently run your MLM or are used to the syntax of your MLM. That would
be violating RFCmumble! What, you weren't following <some random list
generally unrelated to the work you do>?
RK> I'm sorry you weren't paying attention.
Well, when someone proposes to tell me how to do my job, I expect them to
at least pin up a notice in the lobby of my building, if they don't have
the decency to send me a memo.
- J<
