Am 11.05.2013 08:01, schrieb A.L.E.C:
On 05/10/2013 08:58 PM, Michael Heydekamp wrote:
So you're saying that the issues I posted are no issues (although you didn't even read them)...??
Then you should read my post rather than saying "Sorry, I'll not read this". They are clear issues. But well, feel free to ignore them. Just too bad that I wasted time to analyze them and to attach screenshots and message text/sources.
I'm just saying that I'm tired about explaining which are issues which are not, why there's a space at the end of line, etc.
I didn't ask any such kind of questions in my message which you meant to comment with "Sorry, I'll not read this". Far from it, I clearly stated that these ARE issues.
I also didn't ask why there are spaces at the EOL in one of my previous messages, as I'm very well aware of it. And because I'm very well aware of it, I just asked this:
Right! And BTW: Is the blank at the end of line of any importance/meaning in quoted paragraphs?
Would the meaning of spaces at EOL (in context with format=flowed) mean nothing to me, I wouldn't have raised this question, see...?
I just wasn't 100% sure if the same rule would apply to QUOTED paragraphs as well, as I do not know all RFCs by heart. So I thought it would be OK to ask you, as a person which I considered being more competent than me.
But apparently you feel offended by being asked a question. Although that was definitely not my intention, this is now well noted, though I don't understand it.
Also, I said that you should use bugtracker.
Sure. Nonetheless I believed that it's a rule to first post the issues here, and if they won't be fixed right away, a ticket shall be created. As you will remember, a number of issues had been fixed in the past (by you or by Thomas) which did never make their way to the bugtracker. Simply because the fix had been committed faster than I have been able to create a ticket.
If the current rule is that no issues at all shall be posted to this list anymore, then this rule is new to me. Please let me know if this rule does indeed apply.
Finally, don't post tons of issues in one go, even if related.
The message we are talking about is just about one single issue, not "tons of it".
Sorry, you don't pay me to spent a day on your posts, I've got better things to do.
Sorry, you don't pay me to test and analyze this stuff as well. (And I've got "better" things to do as well, but was just trying to help.)
My vision of the relation between testers and developers was a more cooperative one: Testers will find and report the issues as good and as analytic as they can, and the developers will hopefully fix them some day.
Years ago, when I was still developing our DOS/16 MUA, I ENCOURAGED users and testers to find and post issues, and was THANKFUL if they did that. I considered their work as valuable as the work of the developers. The more specific their reports were, the more valuable they were.
Didn't you observe that I'm the only one trying to follow your posts about text formatting? So, maybe it's not a high prio for others on this list too.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm often also not following up to other user's posts, but that doesn't mean that their posts are irrelevant to me (or, even more important, to Roundcube).
And, please: If text formatting (be it composing, quoting or forwarding) should not be considered as the most relevant basics that a MUA should handle correctly, then we are indeed in disagreement.
A final word to RFC2646, to which you pointed me at: This is obsoleted by RFC3676 in the meantime. But according to http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2646 and http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3676, both still have the status of a "PROPOSED STANDARD". But I'm of course aware that this status doesn't mean too much in real life.
All in all, I'm surprised and disappointed about your aggressive and unfriendly attitude. If you want me to stop testing, analyzing and posting issues to help to improve Roundcube, then, well, please just let me know.
Cheers,
Michael Heydekamp Co-Admin freexp.de Düsseldorf/Germany