See below: ----- Original Message Follows ----- > > At 02:32 PM 22/01/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >What is wrong with the mailman authors making their product > superior >enough to compensate for Microdummies poor programing and > faulty RFC >interpretation? > > > What is wrong with this idea, is that it means Mailman is going > against the RFC that it currently obeys, to work with something > that is broken. > > What should happen is get the broken package fixed, rather than make > a unbroken package broken. I agree, in a perfect and ideal world that is what should happen. Unfortunatly for all of us, we don't live in it.
I have no issue with a position that says "we won't change it to work with a broken client", nor with a position that says "we will change it to compensate for Outlooks defects". I just think its sad that Mailman may be tossed because of a hardline position, thats all. At any rate, I get to much email from my lists. Lets kill this off as Off Topic. ==================== Kevin W. Gagel Network Administrator (250) 561-5848 local 448 (250) 562-2131 local 448 -------------------------------------------------------------- The College of New Caledonia, Visit us at http://www.cnc.bc.ca Virus scanning is done on all incoming and outgoing email. -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ This message was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe or change your options at http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
