[ntp:questions] PPS only configuration

Mike S mikes at flatsurface.com
Thu Feb 21 21:29:52 UTC 2013

On 2/21/2013 2:16 PM, Brian Utterback wrote:
> Now, if you don't like RFC2646, you might say it's not a standard and
> that you won't follow it, but I don't think you should get a lot of
> sympathy, just as if you decided that you were going to ignore RFC 1305
> because it isn't a standard.

2646 has been obsoleted by 3676, which along with 1000 others, is only a 
"proposed standard," where "deploying implementations of such standards 
into a disruption-sensitive environment is not recommended." Hardly 
something to demand compliance with if you're trying to find fault with 
a released MUA.

If you want to appeal to a widely accepted specification for MIME, then 
the draft standard ("it is reasonable for vendors to deploy 
implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption sensitive 
environment.") RFC2046 is where you look, especially when discussing an 
email which is clearly not using the 3676 Format Parameter. If there's 
an issue with an MUA which attempts to implement 3676 when displaying a 
2046 formatted message, then the problem is with either 3676 or the 
implementation in the MUA.

"the subtype "text/plain", which is a generic subtype for plain text. 
Plain text does not provide for or allow formatting commands, font 
attribute specifications, processing instructions, interpretation 
directives, or content markup. Plain text is seen simply as a linear 
sequence of characters, possibly interrupted by line breaks or page 
breaks. "

More information about the questions mailing list