Message-ID: <19971224065712.58415@snark.thyrsus.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 06:57:12 -0500
From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ACM.ORG>
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>,
        IETF working group on revision of mail standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: How to find a solution
References: <3.0.32.19971224105935.00a15100@pop.dial.pipex.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19971224105935.00a15100@pop.dial.pipex.com>; from Graham Klyne on Wed, Dec 24, 1997 at 11:37:07AM +0000
Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs

Graham Klyne <GK@ACM.ORG>:
> At 00:13 23/12/97 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> >That's a pretty good assumption to start from.  It's not like Internet
> >email is an infant technology; there's a huge user and code base, and
> >the cost of deliberately breaking compatibility with the 99% of it
> >that assumes Personal-Reply-To semantics would be just too high.
> 
> A reasonable viewpoint, but I thought John Klensin's comment was also telling:
> >Remember that the internet is growing exponentially 
> >-- we victimize far fewer people today by making changes toward 
> >a clear and rational model (whatever that is) than the number 
> >of people we victimize tomorrow by preserving a confused model 
> >on the basis that prior weak MUA designs need to be protected.

I strongly agree with Mr. Klensin.  But there's no inconsistency here --
we wouldn't be compromising a "clear and rational model" by going with
Reply-To-Personal plus Mail-Followup-To.   Indeed, this is the same
model a couple of million USENET users are already comfortable with.
It's been field-tested.

So: we can choose Reply-To-Personal plus Mail-Followup-To, get a
"clear and rational" model that many users already grok, break less
than 1% of the mailers out there, and be in sync with where the
Eudora and Mutt folks are already going with or without us.

Or we can do something else, declare 99% of existing MUAs "broken" for
no demonstrated gain in expressiveness, and be widely ignored.

I don't understand why there is even an argument here.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.ccil.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a>

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives
[only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise,
and independence to the mind.  Games played with the ball and others
of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on
the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your
walks."
        -- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.