Re: OT: Re: Less is more

>> If that field occurred in an actual message generated by an actual 
>> MUA I'd claim it was a programmer error even if it was syntactically 
>> valid :)  Anyone who put that in a shipping product ought to be 
>> sacked.
>
> I can agree with that - but then I'm not arguing that the RFC822 date 
> format is sensible and good.

nor, really, am I.  but if we're going to change it, we should change 
it to something that will actually interoperate better  - not just 
something which will produce a different set of interoperability 
problems.  (note that if we change the date format we'll get interop 
problems from the conversion between old and new formats no matter what 
- so the change isn't justified unless we drastically reduce the 
interop problems associated with the new format as compared with the 
old.)

> I'm concerned with interoperability. I'm concerned that the mail-ng 
> specification will be simple and sensible, so people parse and 
> generate the syntax as specified, not some undefined smallish subset 
> of it.

concur.  but this is more difficult than it seems at first glance.

Keith