‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, August 28, 2020 2:35 AM, Ashley Dixon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 09:07:03PM +0000, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: > > > anyway i'm out of this. massive waste of time. i > > could've finished server-side hillarymail by it. > > Oh, come on. People on this list have decades of experience managing and > implementing e-mail protocols, and you call their (free) help a "massive waste > of time"? Stop being silly and realise that no initial proposal is completely > flawless. it's not against "people on the list". it's rather for them. because continuing talking to grant (and soon you) is fueling a useless conversation that is effectively vandalising the mailboxes of 100s of people on this list. now you're posting this yet another useless drama message trying to make it sound as if it's against "people on the list" or as if i'm too defensive of hillarymail. so now i'll also stop talking to you in this sub-thread (in addition to grant taylor). nothing personal. we may talk in other sub-threads. it's just that talking to you 2 in these late threads became a fuel to vandalise others' mailboxes. > As I keep urging you, define some goals (and as Grant said, start with > defining > the current problem), finish an initial standards document, and begin writing > a > reference implementation. Or just define some of the core algorithms with > pseudocode. I can almost-guarantee that you will start realising things that > need changing almost immediately upon doing so. nothing new. we already discussed this in the other sub-thread and, as i said there, i am already planning to write an implementation. and i'm already refining the draft. i don't know why you keep repeating non-new things over and over (zero information content). that sub-thread has also became very useless thanks to you and grant for talking about margaret thatcher, LaTeX and other unrelated things. zero actual comments about technical aspects. > Perhaps it is just me with my English sense of over-politeness, but I find > your > conduct to be remarkably audacious (and frankly rude) considering all the time > people are spending to help you. ... And if you don't want this sort of > on-line > discourse, why did you post on the list at all? is your "English" sense of "over-politeness" capable of sensing vandalism caused by having you post texts with low information content, or irrelevant info, to people's inboxes? (rhetorical)
