Re: Anyone using QtmmSendEmail... a favor... :)

******************
Brad said...
I have found that IBM is a real stickler for RFCs and rules, much more
than any other entity.  That can be a good thing, but when it doesn't
mesh with the rest of the world, it can be a problem.  So I'm not sure
if I like it or not... lol
******************

Just a side comment <rant> to the thread...

Writing to the standards is actually the right thing to do. Writing a standards based program that is not based on standards is wrong. It just is irritating to have to deal with those exceptions and can lead to issues we shouldn't have to deal with.

How many times over the years do we have to make exceptions for "poorly written" code that should be a no brainer because someone decided not to follow "the rules". Recently we dealt with a windows print driver that didn't use the usual windows print driver subsystem. Why? and Yikes! Over in HTTP land, Scott has had to code "exceptions" to the rules to accommodate "poorly written" servers.


I understand extending functionality to gain an advantage but is it really necessary or warranted? What happens when someone creates an email address that is longer than the RFC? Does it work everywhere? The obvious answer is no. Besides, what is the point of the standard if it is ignored?

Can you imagine the chaos if some ISP decided they needed a fifth octet in the IP address and just started supporting 192.168.1.1.1? Internal to their network, maybe they could make it work great but how in the heck would the rest of the internet deal with that?
</rant>