[fergie-spew] RE: FW: Crews Survey Rita's Damages

Mon Sep 26 04:22:11 UTC 2005

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?)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20050926/a3d1c1b7/attachment.sig>