Rene, et al --
...and then -{ Rene Brehmer }- said...
%
% According to historical records, on Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:39:33 -0400 John
% Nichel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about "Re: [PHP] PHP Web Hosting":
%
% >-{ Rene Brehmer }- wrote:
% >> At 21:19 19-04-2004, John Nichel wrote:
% >>
% >>> Greg Donald wrote:
% >>>
% >>>> Your signature is twice the rfc1855 suggested limit.
...
% >>>
% >>> And the RFC1885 'guidelines' are also almost 10 years old. I think
...
% >>
...
% >
% >Ahhhh, but the almost 10 year old RFC says this...
% >
% >"Limit line length to fewer than 65 characters and end a line with a
% >carriage return."
%
% Hmm ... why the heck 65 characters ??? ... Old EGA screens were 80x34Because by the time you get to the fourth or fifth reply, just as in this top-heavy example, the original 65-char line will be shifted over by quote markers and be nearing the 80-char screen limit after all. /me fondly remembers a quoting war where the various posters' contributions made a string of gibberish over 40 chars long ... /me fondly remembers days when different quoting prefixes were accepted -- nay, expected -- as well % characters, VGA is 80x43 characters ... The reason Usenet standard is 76 % chars wide messages (today anyways) is that text-mode readers need the last % 4 characters to display window borders and control chars along the message % lines ... What "text-mode readers" bother with "window borders"? :-) But I agree with the CR/NL/CR-NL bit, and I can't imagine and RFC casually calling a newline a carriage return. Odd. HTH & HAND :-D -- David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
