When I point to how we're still wrastlin' with email clients' functionality though it's 2007 (as evidence that yuppies and their kidz know how to cash out 80% of the profit for providing 20% of the functionality ... nasty aulde dawg that I am) my interlocutor looks at me like I've sprouted a second head. Which, in these times, passes for compelling counter-argument.
Today I came across this:
"due to the fact that i'm using a web mail client, and my system is extremely unstable, i kept receiving an error message from the mail server, immediately followed by the crashing and auto-closing of whatever browser i was attempting to use... apparently, the error messages on the mail server were false alerts, and, consequently, the post ended up being posted multiple times."
If you're not using elite gear, you're going to get stabbed in the eye. But not just techno-peasants, not by a long shot! What has W3C's HTMLWorkingGroup been wrangling? Whether it's dead obvious that mailing list software should be configured the to include a "Reply-To: <list address>" header in messages, or whether that's just dead wrong. 2007 ... that's been a perennial problem /forevuh/, and was fully documented in 2000 ... to absolutely no avail: the two camps remain at logger-heads.
see marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html ("List Reply-To considered harmful"; a compilation) of unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html ("''Reply-To'' Munging Considered Harmful") and metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml ("Reply-To Munging Considered Useful")
Is it because of my 2nd head that I have been so rebuffed in arguing that we have for long been in need of a dialectical discourse system? What else could it be ... opportunistic careerism and tunnel-vision? Naawww, not us!
"Chaos is a name for any order that produces confusion in our minds." -- George Santayana