Carl-Adam Brengesjö writes:
> eric wrote:
> >>Not even the choice of binary or text protocol affects the `what'
> >>concept of the protocol, nor does it define the syntax used. So I say a
> >>`what' concept should be done as the number 1 priority.
> > me, me ... I know the answer :)
I think (but I should not be alone) that the
> > 'what' concept is "share and talk". Am I wrong ? :)
> :p No, you're not wrong. But please excuse me for my bad english. What
> is a good name to describe what I had written then?
I'm fairly sure that he didn't misunderstand you. The thing is that it
is already rather clearly defined what the protocol is supposed to do,
considering that it is for `Direct Connect'. Almost everything that is
left to define is more or less what you call `how' stuff, as far as I
> ps. why does my mail client (thunderbird) tries to reply directly to
> you, eric, instead of the mailing list?
Most mail clients have two reply modes. You are probably trying
`Reply', not `Follow up', or whatever Thunderbird calls them. They're
called Reply and Follow up in VM, at least, and I'd guess it's about
the same thing. `Reply' only puts the sender of the mail in the `To:'
field, while Follow up does that and puts the previous `Cc:' receivers
in the `Cc:' field of the new mail. It happens all too often that I
type Reply by mistake and never realize that I never sent to the