piclist 2008\07\07\112203a >
Thread: compliant e-mail systems ..... was [EE]:Eagle question
www.piclist.com/techref/pcbs.htm?key=eagle
face picon face BY : email (remove spam text)(Olin Lathrop)



Rolf wrote:
>> alan smith wrote:
>>
>>> Hijacking the thread...since the question was answered...
>>>
>>
>> What, your mail program can't start new threads?
>
> Ooi!. Olin, your mail program is not exactly thread-compliant..... it
> fails to process the References: header correctly

You totally missed the point.  This guy said he was hijacking a thread to
ask a new question, but that it was OK since the original question was
answered.  My response was intended to be sarcastic, in essence saying
something like "So start a new thread, duh.", but James frowns on such
things so I didn't.

> As a result, your mails do not appear where they belong in the thread.
>
> Here is an example of a broken mail header of yours:

This is a totally independent issue.  I use Outlook Express, right now on a
Windows 2000 system.  Frankly, there is way to much garbage in PIClist
headers.  If my (very common) mail program decides to strip some out, I
don't really care.  I have no problem reading PIClist mail, and the thread
names show up in my mailer just fine.

I guess there is some wrinkle that this version of OE doesn't do.  It
doesn't seem to effect what I get, so I don't have a problem with that.  If
others do, it points out that there are too many wrinkles in the email
standards, and that if you want the broadest possible compatible
interchange, stick to plain old 80 character ASCII text lines with no fancy
assumptions.

> At least keep in mind that when the 'thread levels' become deep, your
> mail system fails to produce valid headers, truncates header lines,
> and generally misbehaves.

If you say so.  Seems to work fine for me.  And since this is a very common
mail program (Microsoft OE), it's probably not a good idea for your system
to rely on others implementing that part of the standard as you think they
should, reqardless of who is right.

> You also may want to think about that before you
> accuse other people of producing too-long mail lines (which are
> perfectly standards compliant) that get truncated (by your systems)

Perfectly standards compliant and a good idea are two different things.  I
know that my POP3 server apparently truncates lines at 256 characters, and
that is wrong.  The standard guarantees 1024 if I remember right, but
"encourages" more.  So to be truly standards compliant, a mailer would still
have to deal with paragraphs that are longer than 1024 characters and break
them up somehow.

Once again, whether the standard says you need to or not, to write email
that the broadest possible audience can reliably read, send it in plain
ASCII text with lines not exceeding 80 characters unless necessary (like a
long URL, for example).  You can be right or you can be effective.  Pick
one.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
<002601c8e045$84cd2020$0300a8c0@main> 7bit

See also: www.piclist.com/techref/pcbs.htm?key=eagle
Reply You must be a member of the piclist mailing list (not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the piclist. This form requires JavaScript and a browser/email client that can handle form mailto: posts.
Subject (change) compliant e-mail systems ..... was [EE]:Eagle question

month overview.

new search...