On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 01:31:46PM -0700, Mark Crispin wrote:
> Sometimes, when people do not answer mail, it is because they are on
> vacation. I just returned from a one-month email-free vacation in Alaska.
Ok, that would be why you didn't answer that mail. Understand that after not
getting an answer for two weeks, it's unfortunately become natural to decide
that your mail was ignored.
Note too that when you leave that long, it is customary to leave an
autoresponder.
That does not explain why you have yet to answer my mail asking nicely if
you would care to add a pointer to my patches to a file in your
distribution, or your web page (that was after you said you weren't
interested in including them, which I'll repeat is ok, I never got offended
by that)
You brushed me off, and we both know that.
> I am not going to refute Marc Merlin's message point-by-point, except to
> point out that the IMAP and c-client mailing lists archives shows that his
> patch was merely one of a long series of patches which have the notion of
> restricting a user's file naming access above and beyond what the
> filesystem provides.
Uh?
1) 4 patches, split and documented separately, and two of them were almost
one liners (actually, I think you also ended up re-implementing the one
that lets you hide files that start with a dot).
2) Only one patch, the "anti FS wandering" patch, restricted access to the
FS. That's what you re-implemented as restrictBox
So no, it's not "a long series of patches which have the notion of of
restricting a users' file naming access..."
> The first such patch was written by me over 10 years
> ago, and I have written several others for people who asked me nicely.
That's fine.
1) it wasn't in the distribution, so not very useful
2) I didn't ask you to write a feature I needed if I could have coded it and
contributed it back
3) you made no mention of that when I Emailed you. Your answer amounted to
"thank you for your submission, I'm not interested in including or
bundling these patches, and I'm not interesting in linking to them or
mentioning them in my documentation"
The last two people I talked to about submitting patches to you told me both
"good luck". Coincidence?
> I've also received any number of such patches from other people, including
> Merlin.
Great, then I guess that it only took a long time for any of them to go in,
that can happen. Mentioning this when people end up writing independently
the same thing because it's not in the distribution would have been helpful
> The new restrictBox functionality is the culmination of this 10+ years
> worth of study of what various sites do, and a distillation of it into
> something that is reasonably simple.
And that's fine. I did not claim ownership of that idea or said that you
stole my code and put your name on it. For that matter, your implementation
is probably better.
However, the lack of response and info when you are asked about this sure
didn't lead anyone to believe that several people had written the same patch
and that you were hoping to include the feature at some point (it was sent
to the list too, and no one else seemed to know because no one answered to
say the feature was on its way or that they had written something similar)
> I spent a considerable amount of time hand-holding Merlin through matters
> that he could have found out for himself if he had read the documentation
> and various books available. If this is the way that he chooses to repay
> my efforts, we are both better off with him using a different product.
Uh?
You are confused. I Emailed you once a personal question, maybe 2-3 years
ago, on whether imapd was able to jump from header to header in an mbox
file. You nicely answered, that no, it was not the case.
After that, I have Emailed the list a few times to discuss a patch
implementation or announce one, I reported a problem with syslogging in
imap-2001.BETA.SNAP-0105251616 which was fixed in 2001aRC2, and the only
question I asked that was in the documentation (well, it wasn't when I read
it, but the documentation had been updated since my last read) was building
with SSLTYPE=nopwd
So, yes, shoot me, I asked one question that was in the docs, but I sent
more patches and answered questions than I wasted people's time with that
one instance.
So since you are calling this "hand holding", I see now that you are full of
shit (forgive the expression, English isn't my native tongue, and I don't
know of a more polite equivalent), it's clear that I don't need to deal with
you further.
Do reconsider your dealing with people who offer to contribute code to your
project. I've contributed to more than 20, and you were the worst by an
other of magnitude: even for a linux kernel patch, people answered me and
told me why they did or did not like the patch and whether it had a chance
to go in or not and why.
Have a nice day.
Marc
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP key
