Re: [cobalt-users] top posting?

[Peter Low <peterlow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:23 AM 4/6/01 -0300, you wrote:
> At 4/4/01 09:43 PM -0400, you wrote:
> > > BTW, who voted that top posting is a bad
> > thing? Most email clients will
> > > automatically top post anyway.
>
> A substantial portion of the Internet community voted it a bad thing, as
> evidenced by the existence of the RFC. And most **MICROSOFT** mail
> clients top-post automatically, since Microsoft doesn't care about
> anyone's way but its way.
>
>
> --
> Rodolfo J. Paiz
> rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Does the existence of the RFC prove that "a substantial portion of
the Internet community voted it a bad thing"?

Note that RFC 1855 is an Informational RFC:

"Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet
community.  This memo
   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. 
Distribution of
   this memo is unlimited."

 From RFC 2026 on Informational RFCs:

"4.2.2  Informational

   An "Informational" specification is published for
the general
   information of the Internet community, and does not
represent an
   Internet community consensus or recommendation. 
The Informational
   designation is intended to provide for the timely
publication of a
   very broad range of responsible informational documents from
many
   sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to
verification
   that there has been adequate coordination with the standards
process
   (see section 4.2.3).

   Specifications that have been prepared outside of the
Internet
   community and are not incorporated into the Internet
Standards
   Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be
published as
   Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and
the
   concurrence of the RFC Editor."

I conclude that the existence of an informational RFC which tells us not
to top post does not prove that "a substantial portion of the
Internet community voted it a bad thing."

Peter