> > Why isn't the handling consistent?
> probably because this is an Open Source project, and any number of
different
> people have any number of different ideas.
That was my first thought, but checking the code and CVS first, it appeared
to come from the same origin. So I thought that there might be some deeper
reason for why it was handled two different ways; a reason I had missed.
Similarly with my question about instrumenting LocalDelivery and
RemoteDelivery to accept a processor name for failure notification. I
wasn't making the assumption that it hadn't been considered in the past.
Instead I was asking.
Should I take your responses to mean that you don't know of any reasons for
the difference, and that you believe it might be worthwhile (post-2.1?) to
make such a change?
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
