OT: MUAs that suck
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
on 12/09/2008 08:27 PM Stephen J. Turnbull said the following:
>
> Sure, but that's almost always because they use broken MUAs. A
> reasonable MUA ...
I use Thunderbird, and I've used Evolution. Thunderbird doesn't have
an (obvious) List-Reply function, and I don't recall Evolution having
one. So those users are shit out of luck, eh?
No, they just have to work harder than people with competent MUAs, and
won't get much sympathy from me as listmaster, that's all. Their MUAs
are missing an important, well-designed, *ancient* feature for
handling list traffic, and that's not my fault.
Stuck in the Dark Ages? Behind the times?
If they don't understand a ten-year-old standard (RFC 2369, July
1998), indeed they are.
Archaic, obsolete, old? Yeah, fuck 'em.
Hey, I'm sorry that the people who wrote those things thought that
what the world needed was OSS clones of Outlook or Eudora. Obviously
that's a good way to get along in corporate America, which seems to be
an important goal of the GNOME project in general, and of the
Evolution and Tbird projects in particular. Not my problem; their
goals are what they are, and if that works for them and/or you, fine.
It doesn't work for me, though, and since Reply-To munging happens to
be my decision to make, it's only fair that I let you know that this
policy isn't going to change, and why not.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta