From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 16 02:34:38 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E6316A417 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:34:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: from mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4374613C43E for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:34:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: (qmail 18615 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2007 02:34:37 -0000 Received: from april.chuckr.org (chuckr@[66.92.151.30]) (envelope-sender ) by mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 16 Dec 2007 02:34:37 -0000 Message-ID: <47648E28.3010903@chuckr.org> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:32:08 -0500 From: Chuck Robey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071107 SeaMonkey/1.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ted Mittelstaedt References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rob , FreeBSD Chat , Andrew Falanga Subject: Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:34:38 -0000 (note, because I went a bit off-topic, I redirected this to -chat) Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > It's a chicken and egg problem. > > There's nothing wrong with writing an extremely strict standard. > The issue is the implementation. > > If your server implementation is so strict that most clients have > difficulty, then users will find something else and your standard > will end up on the dustbin. > > It's better to start out with a strict standard and a forgiving > server implementation, then as it falls into mainstream use, work > with the client developers to correct their stuff. > > We don't want to end up like Microsoft - which writes very lax > and contradictory standards, then makes up strict implementations. > Then every new release of their stuff breaks things. Well, M$ has additional sneaky reasons for that, it's called hijacking the standard. I personally believe they do it on purpose. You see, they did it for browsers, and that serves as a good example. Their competitors followed the standard, M$ really didn't, and since all the Windows owners, using Windows software to create their pages, were making pages that other browsers (at least at first) weren't able to correctly display. It's fairly scurrilous thing to do, especially if the company doing it was at the same time trumpeting how much they were supporting the standard. I was rather pleased when M$ had all that trouble establishing their browser as the #1 (they finally had to give it away). It's marketing tactics like that which cause me to react by refusing to have anything whatsoever to do with their product. > > Ted > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.2/1184 - Release Date: 12/14/2007 > 11:29 AM > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"