Re: FAO: cfg: defaults

[Randall R Schulz <rrschulz at cris dot com>]

Chris,

I think it's in one of the email RFCs. I remember tracking it down once 
during an (ill-considered) "debate" on one of the Bay Area Usenet groups.

I should have made note of where I found it, but I didn't. I can find a 
variety of non-official mentions of this as a recommended convention using 
Google, but the relevant RFCs are numerous and voluminous.

I'll try to find something definitive and authoritative and let you know. 
(It's one of those pet peeve / crusade things for me to get people to use 
these things, so the authority of the IETF is something good to have at hand.)

Randall Schulz


At 17:33 2003-01-04, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 04:24:53PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >At 08:50 2003-01-04, John Morrison wrote:
> >>Please find for you perusal and review...  (long links, will wrap!)
> >
> >Why don't you enclose all URLs in email within angle brackets instead
> >of forcing people to reintegrate the wrapped links?  Even a short URL
> >can fall on a line wrap boundary if embedded in other text.
>
> I've noticed that people do this and I'm always curious as to why.  Is
> there a mail reader convention that causes angle bracket wrapped URLs to
> be properly understood?  I know that my mail reader doesn't understand
> them but...
>
> cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/