Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Walther <address@hidden> writes:

    Jonathan> When you fix them, let us know, and we'll support you in
    Jonathan> ending Reply-To munging by mailing lists. :-)

Fixing them is not our job; it's the job of the lazy, uncooperative
developers of the broken software.  If we do it the other way around,
they'll get fixed a lot faster, because their users will complain.

    Jonathan> No, its a matter of "someones going to get screwed,
    Jonathan> let's make it as few people as possible."

How short-sighted can you get?  If we stopped reply-to munging
_today_, all FLOSS MUAs would have proper list-reply commands within a
year (and I mean the versions distributed with then-current Red Hat
and SuSE CDs).  The users would scream, and the developers would
finally get off their fat asses and add function instead of frill.

Maybe even Microshaft would have to take notice.

    Jonathan> You seem to be saying "I'd rather screw the majority as
    Jonathan> long as things work great for me, thank you very much."

No.  That's what you and Robert are saying.

What we are saying is that _in the long run_ everybody will be better
off if we support existing standards.  Sure, sometimes standards
themselves are broken, and improving them can be a massive effort.
But just ignoring them is a guarantee of stagnation, and a great
obstacle to effective cooperation.

ISTR you writing a paean to cooperation on emacs-devel.  Don't you
realize that advocating deliberate disregard of published standards is
as uncooperative position as there can be?


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.