We should continue discussion on this list of how to establish, for
advancement to DRAFT, just what features and functions of the Porposed
Standard are implemented and tested for interoperation between two (or
more) independent implementations.
Any features of functions that aree not implemented and tested for
interoperation must be shaved off the standard to progress it to
As for that REPLY-TO, I put that there myself as I do not like to get
back two copies when I send to the list, and it gets worse when people
leave my CC address on their replies, to I get two of those as well.
Thank you for at least not forcing two copies to be sent to me. I
will look at the cited FAQ when I get a chance. If you would clip and
send me a copy by EMail, I will get to it sooner;-)...
From Jamie Zawinski's your message Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:21:56 -0700:
}Einar Stefferud wrote:
}> This is just an early warning to get you all in the right frame of
}> mind. Should we consider organizing some kind of virtual
}> connect-a-thon over the Internet?
}That's worked nicely for S/MIME. The end result was a chart of
}products known to interoperate with each other. (Of course, you
}need more than two participants for it to make sense...)
}> Should be build up a library of test cases? Perhaps mounted on some
}> site where anyone can send a generated test message and get back a
}> pass/fail/diagnosis response?
}> Or, going the other way, request a test MHTML message to be received.
}A set of test cases would be great, but I don't think there's much need
}to automate the process. If there were just a collection of messages
}sitting on a server somewhere that demonstrated some of the hairier
}constructions, that would go a long way.
} == Jamie
}PS: please fix the list software to not point Reply-To back at the
}list. It's wrong. See http://www.unicom.com/FAQ/reply-to-harmful.html