Everytime someone turns it on they learn why they had to, because an M$ product doesn't comply with the RFC's, and we've provided the workaround as a service to our users, not because we condone M$'s transgression. In the real world we have to accept non-compliance by others, why not take the opportunity to name and shame them?
I just can't get behind making a sysadmin's life difficult like this. These problems are hard to diagnose, get dealt with during off-hours, involve users getting very upset and having it happen numerous times before the sysadmin realizes he needs to flip some non-compliance flag in it's mail server. I just think this would be a way to kill James' marketshare.
The bar is already really really high.
Don't I know it. So lets exert pressure against it getting worse.
Making a server unusable to most people kills adoption, so we're just leaving ourselves isolated purists. Believe me, I'd like James to be adopted to the point that some other mail client/server author would reference how James handles something, but I don't see us getting there with this approach.
-- Serge Knystautas President Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
