On 05-Sep-97 Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>Not really. The current -standard- for email transmission is RFC821
>(also about 15 years old), and that explicitly states that SMTP is
>7-bits only. ESTMP, MIME, and other standards-track protocols are
>designed to try to work around that problem,
Carey Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So it certainly looks like Orn needs to fix his mailer.
>
> RFC2047 is also applicable - it's responsible to the mangled addresses
> you see sometimes if you MUA isn't aware of the proposed standard.
> However, I don't think it should be applied to Date:
> On 04-Sep-97 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > The RFC are all the rules that actually apply to the
> > internet. And if we all start ignoring the rules, the cooperative
> > process that is the internet (and, indeed, Linux itself is the
> > product of a similar cooperative process).
> >
Hi,
>>"Orn" == Orn E Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Orn> On 04-Sep-97 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The RFC are all the rules that actually apply to the
>> internet. And if we all start ignoring the rules, the cooperative
>> process that is the internet (and, indeed, Linux itself is the
>> p
On 04-Sep-97 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> The RFC are all the rules that actually apply to the
> internet. And if we all start ignoring the rules, the cooperative
> process that is the internet (and, indeed, Linux itself is the
> product of a similar cooperative process).
>
> If you
Hi,
I do not know what the debate seems to be about, but I must
take exception to this statement.
>>"Orn" == Orn E Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Orn> The RFC are just guidelines... and not rules.
The RFC are all the rules that actually apply to the
internet. And
On 03-Sep-97 Clare Johnstone wrote:
>
>If not sorted at all, listed as they arrive, the threads are in good
>order. For example the date on
>Orn's mail as received just now is:
>Date: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mi=F0,?= 03 Sep 1997 23:00:14 +0200 (CET DST)
Which is:
Date: Mið, 03 Sep 1997 23:00:14 +0200 (
On 03-Sep-97 Olaf Weber wrote:
>
>RFC822 would be the appropriate one here, and it does impose some
>restrictions regarding what can and cannot be a date header:
>
> 5. DATE AND TIME SPECIFICATION
>
> 5.1. SYNTAX
>
> date-time = [ day "," ] date time; dd mm yy
>
On 03-Sep-97 George Bonser wrote:
>
>I STRONGLY disagree. I want to know when you wrote it ... not when it
>arrived here. If a mail was delayed a day or two in route, it might
>completely change how I look at the information in the email. Example, a
>put-down of Princess Diana might be viewed in
On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, George Bonser wrote:
>
> I STRONGLY disagree. I want to know when you wrote it ... not when it
> arrived here. If a mail was delayed a day or two in route, it might
> completely change how I look at the information in the email. Example, a
> put-down of Princess Diana migh
Jason Gunthorpe writes:
> On 8859 xxx 2001, Orn E. Hansen wrote:
>> On 02-Sep-97 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> Orn, your mailer is formatting dates in a way that pine doesn't understand
>> HDate: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mi=F0,?= 03 Sep 1997 19:14:09 +0200 (CET DST)
> I noticed that, why is your mailer putti
Olaf Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> RFC822 would be the appropriate one here, and it does impose some
> restrictions regarding what can and cannot be a date header:
[snip]
> So it certainly looks like Orn needs to fix his mailer.
RFC2047 is also applicable - it's responsible to the mangled
On 4 Sep 1997, Carey Evans wrote:
> Olaf Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > RFC822 would be the appropriate one here, and it does impose some
> > restrictions regarding what can and cannot be a date header:
>
> [snip]
>
> > So it certainly looks like Orn needs to fix his mailer.
I agree.
On 8859 xxx 2001, Orn E. Hansen wrote:
> Date: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mi=F0,?= 03 Sep 1997 23:00:14 +0200 (CET DST)
> From: "Orn E. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 03-Sep-97 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> >Hm, interesting thought.. Right now it does sort by the Date: line which
> >is quite nice, it puts a
On 03-Sep-97 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>Hm, interesting thought.. Right now it does sort by the Date: line which
>is quite nice, it puts all the messages in thread order, unless people
>have mis-set clocks ;> Sorting by the recived line would likely be the
>same as not sorting at all though.
>
I
On 8859 xxx 2001, Orn E. Hansen wrote:
> On 02-Sep-97 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> >Orn, your mailer is formatting dates in a way that pine doesn't understand
> HReceived: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> by oehansen.pp.se (8.8.7/8.8.7/Debian/GNU) id TAA11866;
> Wed, 3 Sep 1997 19:15:5
16 matches
Mail list logo
