From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Thu Jul 01 2004 - 21:35:22 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> I have now looked at RFC 2046 again, and the whole provision of References
> with message/partial is an optional extra,
No surprise, that is how it was described.
> and all it suggest is
> referencing the immediate predecessor (no mention of the first in the
> chain).
Yes, again that is how it was described.
> So it is way out of line with the generation of References
> elsewhere
Another unsubstantiated claim. Exactly *which* "elsewhere" which deals
with message/partial?
> General consensus seems to be that you keep the first
Consensus where? Who determined it, when, and by what method?
> So my remark that RFC 2046 was out of line with practice elsewhere seems
> well justified.
Do you really expect anybody to see your exercise in hand-waving as anything
but hand-waving?