I've been using 2+ for a while now, months? and even without a "good" release it is a better product than 1 in a number of ways, including tighter conformance to RFC's and performance. I'd recommend you try it. d.
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Nash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 10:08 PM > To: James Users List > Subject: How stable is 2.0a2? > > > Hi, > > Can anyone comment on the stability of ver 2.0a2? I've just > installed 1.2.1 > on a couple of test machines and it's been working great so far. We need > something fairly stable that we can work with right now; however, I'd hate > to spend much time getting used to one version if I'll want/need > to upgrade > to the next in the near future. > > My only complaint about 1.2.1 (albeit a small one) is that I would like > James to process the message queue more often than once-a-minute. Does > version 2 have this characteristic? > > Thanks, > > David Nash > Michelin North America > > > > ***************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are > confidential and intended solely for the use of > the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error, please > notify the system manager. > > This note also confirms that this email message > has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. > > ***************************************************************** > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
