Google| Subject | Re: nospam still not admitting to an error (was: The closest we'll get to nospam admitting to an err |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 01/24/2016 23:05 (01/24/2016 23:05) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-ac9d42921176fbba527e870516418bc6@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (2h & 26m) > Sandman |
In article <7vfaabdjj31mvr2br37cqet00nuch68hur@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
Eric Stevens
Your definition of threading is not compulsory. Section 2.2.5 of RFC 1036 https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1036.txt states:
" User interfaces need not make use of this header, but all automatically generated follow-ups should generate the "References" line for the benefit of systems that do use it, ..."
Note the use of the word 'should' as opposed the use of 'must'. It's not compulsory.
We have been over all this before. There is no point in going over it again.So why are you doing this all over again? You were proven wrong back then and I would have no problem proving you wrong again using the same facts. Why dig up arguments from the past like this?
-- Sandman
01/06/2016-
