Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id VAA03038; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 21:54:09 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 21:54:08 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id VAA03031; Sun, 24 Sep 1995 21:54:03 -0400 Message-Id: <199509250154.VAA03031@CS.UTK.EDU> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9801; Mon, 25 Sep 95 02:54:01 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2b/1.8b) with RFC822 id 7370; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 02:54:01 +0100 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 02:39:12 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Comments and Resent-* header fields To: Robert Elz cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 25 Sep 1995 11:37:06 +1000 from Robert Elz On Mon, 25 Sep 1995 11:37:06 +1000 Robert Elz said: > You can't "clarify" that, say, mail servers must ignore Resent-* > fields when major mail servers have been doing the exact opposite > for 9 years and there is no alternative solution available *today*. > >Of course we can, if that is the desire. Like any standard it will take >time to be sensibly adopted (like your US butter example), but having a >standard that says the right things allows the world to move towards the >desired end (users can point out to the mail server owner that it is >violating the standard, they can point it out to its author, perhaps the >server will be fixed, perhaps it will be replaced, perhaps in the long >run the standard will be ignored). I could have sworn I'd said no alternative solution is available to the usage you'd like to get rid of? I'm also surprised you haven't realized that my US butter example was pure sarcasm. My experience is that most people in the US don't even know that one kilogram is roughly two pounds. One day, being asked whether I wanted a 12oz or 16oz drink, and not having a clue, I'd asked the waiter and then the 5 people who were with me how many cl this was, but they didn't have a clue either. There were as many theories as there were people volunteering one. Some actually thought a cl was more than a fl oz. All they could come up with was "small bottle" vs "medium bottle", but my experience of "small" and "medium" cokes in cinemas had taught me that this doesn't mean anything. So I asked how these sizes compared to a pint, and this they knew. That's how well the metric system has been adopted. People know it exists, and that's it. And the butter, well, now they have to say 453g in fine print somewhere. It's very much like a Surgeon General Warning, if you want. They print it because they have to, and nobody cares. If you think this is a desirable and sensible way to implement a standard, well, certainly, be my guest and clarify whatever you want. Eric