Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA11681; Thu, 14 Sep 1995 13:41:34 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 14 Sep 1995 13:41:32 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA11660; Thu, 14 Sep 1995 13:41:23 -0400
Message-Id: <199509141741.NAA11660@CS.UTK.EDU>
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 4846; Thu, 14 Sep 95 19:40:37 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 3083; Thu, 14 Sep 1995 19:40:37 +0200
Date:        Thu, 14 Sep 1995 19:20:43 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: Another header-munging example
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
cc: ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 14 Sep 1995 12:28:36 -0400 from moore@CS.UTK.EDU

On Thu, 14 Sep 1995 12:28:36 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU> said:

>Of  course  this requires  that  we  have  agreement that  more  uniform
>behavior is a good  idea, and also that we can  recommend a behavior for
>lists which satisfies most people's needs.

But we don't have agreement on that.  We have a mix of technical experts,
mostly using unix,  and technically ignorant users, mostly using  a PC to
dial up to some online service or  other that has the mail interface that
it has and that is selected not on the basis of the RFC compliance of its
mail interface  (an issue Joe  PC User isn't even  aware of), but  on the
basis of what  interesting services are offered and how  much the account
costs. These  two groups will  never agree on *one*  "correct" behaviour.
You may reach agreement on a suite of "correct" behaviours to address the
various situations, but never on a single one.

  Eric