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

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: PATCH: Outlook compatible attachment naming
From:       Ingo =?utf-8?q?Kl=C3=B6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2004-04-29 23:19:54
Message-ID: 200404300119.55741 () erwin ! ingo-kloecker ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Thursday 29 April 2004 08:08, Till Adam wrote:
> 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?

I guess it's time for a decision by the "KMail decision making group". 
According to the COMMITPOLICY file "The KMail decision making group 
consists of all KMail core developers, including maintainers.". I guess 
the following people do currently qualify as KMail core developers (if 
I've forgotten some then tell me):
- me
- Don
- Carsten
- Marc
- Till

The About KMail dialog also mentions Zack as core developer while David, 
Andreas or Bo are not denoted "core developer" although they've 
contributed a lot more in the current development cycle. I don't think 
Zack currently qualifies as core developer. So it seems there are 
currently five people who have the right to vote.

We will vote for or against the following:
Support of the obsolete RFC 2184 (for Outlook compatible attachment 
filenames).

Ingo: against
Don: 
Carsten: 
Marc: 
Till: 

Regards,
Ingo

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
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]