At 11:24 PM +0100 09/05/00, S L Painting wrote:
>There may be other FAQ maintainers who rely on the "From:" line and/or
>the sig block to supply contact details. Be aware that the copy of
>your FAQ stored at bookcase.com contains neither of these items.
>
>I reproduce an exchange of emails below. It is also worth noting that,
>despite Chad's assurances, many auxiliary headers go missing as well.
Since this posting, I've had an extended and somewhat rancorous
exchange with Chad Fraleigh. I believe he is now including the
auxiliary headers correctly. I have a low opinion of his ability to run
a site such as his, given that I had to tell him two or three times
that he was omitting ALL auxiliary headers and even provide a URL to
his own web site to prove it. His response was "oh, it wasn't supposed
to do that". Well, duh.
He is also now mostly including the important primary headers.
Those are the plusses. On the minus side:
Though he now includes From, Date, and Reply-To, he insists on renaming
them Posted By, Posted Date, and Reply. He doesn't seem to comprehend
that changing the terminology engenders confusion, even if the new
terminology is better. (For periodic postings, "posted date" would
probably be an improvement over "date" if the latter weren't already
standard. The other two changes are silly. He has this idea that most
FAQ maintainers are just posting documents with which they have little
personal involvement and so he doesn't want to credit them with
anything more than "posting" the FAQ.)
He refuses to include the *.answers newsgroups in what he displays for
the Newsgroups line.
He refuses to include Organization. He has his idea of how people use
the Organization header, and he KNOWS that anyone who uses it
differently is WRONG.
He refuses to include the signature. In our correspondence, he
repeatedly and vociferously claimed that "Internet standards" say that
the "-- " sig marker means "cut here". I repeatedly challenged him to
cite such a standard. He was unable to cite anything whatever, yet
continued his claim with heightened vehemence. I cited RFC822 and
RFC1036 (as not mentioning sigs) and RFC1855 (which specifically notes
the sig as being THE correct place to include contact information). He
completely ignored my citations. AFAIK, he doesn't know what an RFC is
and thinks that an "Internet standard" is whatever he thinks.
Given his refusal to serve up the diabetes FAQs as posted, I requested
that he remove them from his site. That was three days ago, and he has
not complied with my request.
He's off his rocker. In my opinion of course.
If anyone wants more details of the correspondence, please contact me
off the list at <edward@paleo.org>.
Edward Reid
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here
*************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved