On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:34:10 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:



In direct contravention to RFC 1855

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Almost ten years old now - formulated at a time when things were a lot
different in a lot of respects.

The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?

Not everyone has access to clever newsreaders which can auto clip
signatures, or read news through a gui.

Broadband is still a luxury for a lot of folks.


Tough. Maybe you'd like me to replace it with a solid block of text
that would be exactly the same number of characters, but a lot less
clear?

What you replace it with is irrelevant. The facts are is that you are
exceeding what is deemed 'polite' by 2.5 times.

We've all been there.

Your .sig delimiter is also non compliant.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter

Internet signatures in mail and news should begin with the character
sequence
DASH DASH SPACE EOL

Point accepted and corrected, although it seemed to "work" as it was,
anyway.

Depends on the news reader, some are a mite more forgiving than others.


greg



--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

Greg Hennessy wrote:

The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?

No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.
--
Michael Hoffman

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:52:12 +0000, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:

The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?

No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.

Nonsense,

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html




greg


--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

Greg Hennessy wrote:
The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?

No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.


Nonsense,

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html

I don't see what referring to this again accomplishes. It's still an
Internet Standard (STD 7).

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html

This is no longer an Internet Standard, having been obsoleted by RFC
2821 (STD 10).

The original document you quoted on netiquette was never an Internet
standard. They are all listed on the same site you referred to at
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/std/std-index.html.

If you believe that all RFCs are normative, then you must find RFC 1796,
"Not All RFCs Are Standards" quite paradoxical:

} It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an
} RFC provides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not
} any more than the publication in a regular journal. In fact, each
} RFC has a status, relative to its relation with the Internet
} standardization process: Informational, Experimental, or Standards
} Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, Internet Standard), or
} Historic.

The document you quote is informational only.
--
Michael Hoffman

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 18:25:43 +0000, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:
The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?

No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.


Nonsense,

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html

I don't see what referring to this again accomplishes. It's still an
Internet Standard (STD 7).

Rubbish,

TCP was defined by a plain old RFC long before it became an IETF standard.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html

This is no longer an Internet Standard, having been obsoleted by RFC
2821 (STD 10).

See above.



greg


--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

Greg Hennessy wrote:
[Michael Hoffman]
Greg Hennessy wrote:
The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?
No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.
[SNIP]
I don't see what referring to this again accomplishes. It's still an
Internet Standard (STD 7).

Rubbish,

TCP was defined by a plain old RFC long before it became an IETF standard.

You have still not pointed out anything "rubbish" or "nonsense" about
anything that I've said. Additionally, I think it is ironic that you are
being so brusque while claiming to uphold a higher standard of
netiquette. If you really think it is more important to keep a sig of
four lines than to be polite, I think you should rethink the purpose of
your adherence to netiquette.

You are arguing that a particular RFC (RFC 1855) is normative, while
ignoring another one (RFC 1796) which states that it is only
informative. You can't argue that all RFCs are normative without an
inherent logical inconsistency.

And before the formal IETF standards process existed, there were plenty
of RFCs which were obsolete or inapplicable, so the mere existence of an
RFC did not make it normative. You are then either left with trying to
pick and choose which ones apply (in which case you decide that RFC 1855
applies but our friend Mr. Coghlan apparently disagrees with you) or
rely on the IETF standards process to decide.
--
Michael Hoffman
(whose sig is never longer than four lines but will defend to the death
your right to do so yourself, even if you look like a boor doing it.
Well, maybe not to the death.)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:10:30 +0000, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:
[Michael Hoffman]
Greg Hennessy wrote:
The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?
No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.
[SNIP]
I don't see what referring to this again accomplishes. It's still an
Internet Standard (STD 7).

Rubbish,

TCP was defined by a plain old RFC long before it became an IETF standard.

You have still not pointed out anything "rubbish" or "nonsense" about
anything that I've said.

Au contraire, I've shown that your laughable attempt to dismiss the long
established netiquette RFC on the basis that it's not an IETF standard is
diversionary nonsense.




greg

--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone