Netiquette forbids me to post a frank description of my immediate response to this.
That would be plain old etiquette. The uber-hip neologism conveys nothing beyond the meaning of it's eponymous source in this context. Furthermore, "Netiquette" was an extension of etiquette to encopmass things like not having a .signature file consisting of more than four lines and not using the internet for commercial purposes at all, by the way. Since the great barbarian seige of the internet, however, it has become abundantly clear that this once distictly meaningfull neologism is now little more than a vestigial anachronism used only by those without a proper historical frame of reference.
My more considered intellectual response is:
*NO!*
I will *never* use a program that automatically sends unsolicited email. It is morally wrong to do so. My inbox already overflows with auto-posted <unflattering_comparison_to_excreta> from <unflattering_comparison_to_genitalia>s who don't care that I don't want it. I will not join their ranks. I will not use a program that requires me to join their ranks, or even makes it possible.
Since your "considered *intellectual* response" is predicated on a moral foundation, it obviously isn't worth very much. Investigate the difference between reason and morality, and, while you're at it, lookup the meanings of C and B in UCBE. Also, since you evidently don't make the C and B spam distinction (as what constitutes spam is predominantly "in the inbox of the reciever"), you just have "join[ed] their ranks" as you clearly don't care that I didn't want this unsolicited email from you. Furthermore, I never suggested a requirement. I suggested a few options. Options are are nearly the antithesis of requirements. Relax. You're overreacting. Emotion over reason.
I very much admire the dillo project's commitment to HTML standards and I want to support your efforts. But turning dillo into a spam-generator is unacceptable. *Please* don't do it.
I admire it as well. But again, what constitutes spam is largely a matter of opinion. For example, since I am not on the Dillo mailing list (I prefer to check the archives when I see fit), I consider semi-irrational, semi-hysterical direct email responses to one of my posts to be spam in my inbox.
At the very least, along side the W3C and WDG validator links in the Bug Meter, a link/exec to send such an email should be provided.
I'm OK with that. If dillo users *want* to email HTML bug reports to webmasters then dillo should help them. I would probably use that feature myself. But user confirmation *must* be mandatory.
Again, I suggested two options, no requirements.
If this post is over-the-top then I apologise. But I don't want to hide the fact that I feel strongly about this.
Ditto. :-) -- Kyle -- Kyle Amon email: amonk@gnutec.com url: http://www.gnutec.com/~amonk/ KeyID 1024D/4EB96E44 Fingerprint = E9EC 0046 8487 23D7 C91C D757 7B2A 8AE9 4EB9 6E44 "The free man is not anti-American, but anti-imperial. America [now] revisits the time of colonizers drunk on their superiority, convinced of their liberating mission, and counting on reimbursing themselves directly." -- Regis Debray This email Copyright 2004 by Kyle Amon, Inc., a Florida corporation, 12032 Colonial Estates Lane, Riverview, FL 33569-6894: +1 (813) 689-4041 amonk@gnutec.com http://www.gnutec.com/~amonk/. All rights reserved.