From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 20 11:19:53 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE32F16A4CE for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC6F43D1F for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:19:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from underway@comcast.net) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-24-17-47-224.client.comcast.net[24.17.47.224]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004032019195201600sbkebe>; Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:19:52 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i2KJMDvO031937; Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:22:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from underway@comcast.net) Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i2KJM8ig031936; Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:22:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from underway@comcast.net) To: Bart Silverstrim References: <200403182042.i2IKg2c18484@clunix.cl.msu.edu> <2C0C0548-791E-11D8-A66F-000A956D2452@chrononomicon.com> <1BE441DA-799C-11D8-9BC6-000A956D2452@chrononomicon.com> <20040320061416.GA76966@moo.holy.cow> From: underway@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:22:08 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20040320061416.GA76966@moo.holy.cow> (parv@pair.com's message of "Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:14:17 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: FreeBSD-questions Mailing List Subject: Re: Mail readers X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:19:54 -0000 Parv writes: > Anybody still interested in this, should not miss ... > > RFC 3676, The Text/Plain Format and DelSp Parameters, Feb 2004 > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3676.txt Thanks for the tip. It's a shame that people (e.g., MSFT and its supporters) can't all abide by the traditional simple rules or that we can't all switch to a new standard with (SOME) features of modern markup languages, but such is life, and RFC 3676 seems like a good compromise which should cut down on a lot of acrimony. Let's all lobby our mail software developers to add support for 3676. > ... which supersedes RFC 2646. "What does that superseding > actually translates to?", i do not know. Like with all RFCs, there's only a hope that people will follow the new ones, which often have features to deal with the fact that some people won't, at least for a while. (E.g., see the last paragraph of the RFC.) BTW, does anybody understand why 3676 refers to 79-column screens? (In addition to conformance to [RFC-2822], there is a historical need that all lines, even when displayed by a non-flowed-aware program, will fit in a standard 79- or 80-column screen without having to be wrapped. The limit is 78, not 79 or 80, because while 79 or 80 fit on a line, the last column is often reserved for a line-wrap indicator.) Anyone ever seen a 79-column screen width or know how common they are? I've never heard of one. (They obviously aren't talking about 80 minus one for a line-wrap indicator, but about 79 minus one.)