[geeks] HD/IDE question

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Lionel Peterson wrote:

> Finally, I don't consider that RFC binding, as far as I am concerned
> that RFC has way too much logic in it for such a simple problem.

It's just the right amount of logic for a problem that's not so simple
when you consider the interoperability side of it.

If the message is "fixed" (the default), the RFC doesn't apply, and the
MUA should present the message as it was originally sent--either as a
series of very long lines or as a series of lines cut to some fixed
length by the sending MUA.

If the message is "flowed", you still compose your message as you
normally would.  However, your MUA breaks the line in the 72-79
character range, and appends a space to the end of each truncated line.
This tells the receiving MUA "hey, if you know how to wrap text of
arbitrary length, it's safe to do so across these lines."  Lines that
don't end in a space are as "fixed".

To put it another way, any mailer that wraps a fixed message (or message
not indicating either way or a flowed message that doesn't mark any
lines as flowable) is displaying the message not as you sent it.   You
-sent- a message with arbitrarily long lines, and, to view that as sent,
my mailer should force me to scroll to the right.  This makes for a
horrible user experience, though, so some mailers assume they know what
you meant to do and flow the message without your permission.

The rules of the RFC give you the option of explictly stating what you
meant to do.

The side benefit is that mailers which do not implement 2646 will
receive a perfectly readble message when "flowed", which shows proper
degredation.

> Couldn't that all be resolved by the viewer including a wrap/no-wrap
> setting for email display?

Triggered how, manually?  If it's triggered automatically, and I'm
mailing an ASCII-art diagram, what if it gets munged in a subtle but
disastrous way?  If it's triggered manually, that's a pain in the neck.

> Finally, just to cite another RFC:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt

Doesn't apply to my connection.  If my ISP uses avian carriers at some
point between our mailhosts, that's beneath the level of abstraction at
which I'm able to do anything.

For what it's worth, 1149 has been implemented before and shown to be
workable, if a bit high in latency.

   http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/

-- 
Jonathan Patschke   "The ruler demands gifts, the judge accepts bribes,
Elgin, TX            the powerful dictate what they desire--they all con-
USA                  spire together. The best of them is like a brier, the
                      most upright worse than a thorn hedge." --Micah 7:3-4