[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: PATCH: Outlook compatible attachment naming
From:       Till Adam <adam () kde ! org>
Date:       2004-04-29 6:08:13
Message-ID: 200404290808.14055.adam () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thursday 29 April 2004 02:01, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 April 2004 07:44, Черепанов Андрей wrote:
> > > > I know. I have situation to use Russian filename (without
> > > > transliteration). How I can do it?
> > >
> > > You have only two options:
> > > a) Don't use Russian filenames.
> > > b) Tell the Outlook (Express) using recipients of your messages
> > > that they should use Mozilla or another mail client that can handle
> > > the correctly encoded attachment filenames KMail (and any other
> > > standard compliant email client) sends.
> >
> > This situation is similar to dictatorship: we know about (and
> > implement) only "right" things and ignore other opinion from simple
> > user. I'd like to resolve this conflict with us.
>
> You are right about one thing: In Free Software projects those who code
> decide. Mere users don't have any power over the development team. But
> because it's Free Software the users can take the source code and
> implement the changes they want themselves.
>
> OTOH, with proprietary software the users neither have any power over
> the development team nor do they have the possibility to change the
> software.
>
> > I don't use any proposal solutions because it more political problem:
> > most my recipients use Outlook/Novell GroupWise and they don't change
> > our mail client (Outlook/Novell GroupWise is corporate standarts for
> > their organization).
>
> So you want me to throw all my principles over board just because some
> multi-billion dollar companies can't implement support for a simple
> RFC? Obviously Microsoft doesn't deem it necessary to implement this
> RFC because everybody else follows their lead (or should I say
> dictatorship?) and implements an obsolete RFC instead. Everybody else?
> No, there a small team of developers who resists the Roman^WRedmondian
> empire...
>
> Sorry, but there's nothing I can add to this thread. I've stated my
> opinion. I and a few others code, and so I and those few others decide.
> Feel free to fork KMail and implement RFC 2184.

Ingo, in this particular case I think the benefit of standing strong on 
principles does not outweigh the negative effects for our users. While I 
certainly share your opinion that we should, whenever possible, be as 
standard compliant as possible and be rather strict in what we produce, not 
give in to market pressure from the Redmondians, etc, there is a limit to 
that. Not implementing the obsoleted rfc hurts a large and quickly growing 
part of our users in their every day mail usage. That's not a good thing. 
I've been very hesitant to admit that and have therefor refrained from 
commenting on this so far, but the refusal of those affected to accept the 
workaround have convinced me that this is much more than a minor annoyance 
for them.

In short, I think we should consider implementing this, even if it means we 
optionally produce mails that are not adhering to the latest rfcs, but to an 
obsoleted one.

What do the others think?

Till
_______________________________________________
KMail developers mailing list
KMail-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail-devel

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]