On 2013-02-22, Mike S <mi...@flatsurface.com> wrote: > On 2/21/2013 7:00 PM, unruh wrote: > > Note that rmc 5322 is 2008. Many of the news readers are older than > > that. > > What's your point? Prior to 2008, RFC822 (1982) applied, which places no > restrictions on line length. Or, if you prefer, RFC2046 (MIME, from > 1996), which also makes no restrictions. > > Failure to display long lines in a useful manner is a problem at the > receiving end. The only reason MUAs "should" send <78 character lines > is to try to accommodate defective recipients (how many people still use > an 80x24 VT-100?). There's no requirement to do so, and complaining > they're somehow wrong when they don't is either ignorant or disingenuous.
I never said they were wrong. I said that that action made their posts difficult to read (for whatever reason) for at least some of us. Since the purpose of the post was to ask for help, pissing off people who could help when it is so easy not to do so, seems silly. Since he may not have realised that was what he was doing, it seemed reasonable to call attention to the fact. I do not believe he was "wrong", and if he wants to, he can continue to do it. And if you want to (apparently you do not since your post is wonderfully and clearly formatted) you may as well. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
