[84812] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [fergie-spew] RE: FW: Crews Survey Rita's Damages
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Sep 26 00:22:43 2005
To: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com>
Cc: "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg@netzero.net>,
nanog-futures@nanog.org, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:16:38 EDT."
<A206819EF47CBE4F84B5CB4A303CEB7A521CE9@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:22:11 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1127708530_3806P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:16:38 EDT, "Hannigan, Martin" said:
> on topic. It's the large off topic threads that historically
> have followed your blog and news posts. Windows filters aren't
> the most reliable beyond a simple tag to home in on.
It's *2005*. RFC822 discussed 'In-Reply-to:' and 'References:' (in sections 4.6.2
and 4.6.3 respectively) in August *1982*. There's *no* excuse for an MUA to not
support it. None. (OK. I'll cut you some slack if the MUA runs on a cell phone.
But only 24-36 months of slack before Moore's Law renders that slack void).
People with enough clue to subscribe to NANOG are unable to use that clue to
find functional MUA software in 2005, why, exactly?
(If the reason is "corporate policy mandates it", ask why corporate policy
mandates the use of sub-standard tools that reduce productivity by not
supporting basic functionality that's been well understood for over 2 decades?)
--==_Exmh_1127708530_3806P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFDN3dycC3lWbTT17ARAsG+AKCvurg5HCWNUS8yk4zt9VVsanfaJgCgnRt8
J07qkItAv5oEqDjgImNX2/A=
=lAqG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1127708530_3806P--
