On 16/01/16 21:58, Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote:
how is that different to any other site or individual who deliberately (or incompetently) breaks the expected standards? are google and facebook and yahoo etc allowed to redefine standards just by breaking them and demanding that everyone else follows their new way? who else is allowed to do that? do you have to be a mega-corporation with billions of dollars or is that priviledge available to us peasants too?
Unfortunately due to the network effect you have to live with the defacto standards of whatever is actually implemented in practice, however badly it breaks the previously agreed upon standards. See also: NAT, firewalls, web browsers, video drivers, UEFI, etc. etc. It's a world of suck, and we can complain about the golden rule (those with the gold make the rules) and point out how much better the world would be if that wasn't the case, but ultimately we do users a disservice if we prevent things from working just because we object to the unethical behaviour of the other players. I'm all for loudly shaming organisations who break things, but I don't think it helps users to refuse to interoperate with them. Should we insist that LUV members boycott Gmail, Yahoo, Facebook etc. unless and until they fix these email issues? I don't think many of our members would thank us. Cheers, Andrew