Re: [Evolution] Outlook does not like .asc signature
- From: Ron Smits <rons ronsmits com>
- To: Ettore Perazzoli <ettore ximian com>
- Cc: Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>, Ian Scott <ian pairowoodies com>, Ed Weinberg <edw q5comm com>, Cliff Wells <LogiplexSoftware earthlink net>, Evolution Mailing List <evolution ximian com>
- Subject: Re: [Evolution] Outlook does not like .asc signature
- Date: 15 Dec 2002 11:28:45 +0100
my 0.02 eurocents
On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 07:04, Ettore Perazzoli wrote:
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 23:35, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
When I say standard, I mean IETF standard.
The goal of this project is to be IETF standards compliant. If you want
something else, then you'll need to start your own project and/or join
another project that aims for whatever it is you want.
The goal of Evolution is to be interoperable as much as possible with
Most of the time, interoperable == compliant to specific IETF
standards. But in those cases when the written standards are not
sufficient (eg. because most real-world apps break them, or, like in
this case, use different standards) then it's advisable to go beyond the
If this means breaking the IETF standard, I would not be very happy. The
standards are not there for nothing. The fact that a certain company
from redwood breaks them, just because they can is not a good enough
reason (tm) for other companies to do the same.
The mere fact that outlook does not accept .asc attachments will prolly
break one of maybe more IETF standards.
Extending the standards yes, I can understand that (IETF is not one of
the fastest organizations in accepting new or improved standards)
breaking them NO.
There are other areas in Evolution where standards-compliance had to be
tweaked to be able to talk to other apps at all (IMIP meeting scheduling
comes to mind).
The lack of inline PGP support in Evolution is a missing feature. It
would make total sense to have it, and I encourage everyone who can to
come up with an implementation.
Jeff's anti-inline-PGP attitude is not to be interpreted as the official
position of Ximian on the matter. :-)
what anti inline attidude? I re-read the thread and nowhere do I see
Jeff stating anything that means he is against anti-inline-attitude.
What I read is a developer who uses the bazaar idea: "If you want it,
make it, or pay to have it made" I do not think there is anything wrong
I understand that Ximian needs to make money and I sure hope that they
do, so that they can continue building software and being a meeting
point of user and developers for that software.But I hope that it does
not mean that they are moving towards to the cathedral idea
] [Thread Prev