Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199509141911.PAA19688@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date:        Thu, 14 Sep 1995 21:00:44 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: Another header-munging example
To: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
cc: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 14 Sep 1995 14:52:47 -0400 from moore@cs.utk.edu

On Thu, 14 Sep 1995 14:52:47 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> said:

>By  "we" I  was  referring to  this working  group.  "We" are  technical
>experts  who know  what  we're doing.  If  "we" can  agree  on a  common
>solution  and  reflect  that  in our  implementations,  many  (not  all)
>"technically ignorant" users will go along with it.

We've  been through  this discussion  before. "We"  do not  agree because
there are  people with diverging opinions  in this group. I  for one will
never agree  to a  solution that creates  trouble for  *today's* computer
illiterate users.  I will consider  solutions that have  a non-disruptive
migration  path, but  these invariably  require new  headers. You  simply
can't find a non-disruptive solution that's based on telling people "This
is what this existing RFC822 header means  from now on, and tough if that
doesn't meet your needs any  longer because there's no replacement, since
we, the technical experts who know  what we're doing, figured that adding
new headers  would create more trouble  than it's worth". I  thought we'd
established this before, but apparently we've talking in loops.

  Eric