* Reply to msg in NET_DEV

On 1996-11-30 08:26, Paul Edwards of 3:711/934.9 wrote:

PE>> Ok, ok.  YOU tell me why all these other people are going out of their
PE>> way to use X-Comment-To instead of To when dealing with fidonet.

JdBP>> Because

JdBP>> (1) They mistake the problem with the readers for a problem with the
JdBP>> actual Usenet message transport mechanism.

JdBP>> Fidonet does this too.  Compare the perennial "8-bit messages are
JdBP>> forbidden in *.PKT files" idiocy.

PE> Thanks for the explanation.  The analogy is good too.  Examples are usually 
PE> a hell of a lot easier to understand than raw theory.

JdBP>> (2) They read the part in RFC1036 about all non-standard headers
JdBP>> beginning with "X-", and decide that the
"To:" field in an
JdBP>> echomail message must be a non-standard header, forgetting that
JdBP>> RFC822 actually already defines a _standard_ header with pretty
JdBP>> much the exact semantics that they want.

PE> Oh.

JdBP>> Mind you, I've actually seen far more "To:" headers
in Usenet messages
JdBP>> than I've seen "X-Comment-To:" headers.  I suggest
that "all of these
JdBP>> people" includes a hidden assumption that many people
*are* doing this,
JdBP>> which is possibly incorrect.

PE> Michael + Robert, as the official internetter-clutterer-uppers in here, can 
PE> you tell me whether you use X-Comment-To or To in order to get your silly 
PE> internet messages into fidonet properly.  BFN.  Paul. 

Oh, this one was sent before the previous two, of course.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---