-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/31/2013 08:30 PM, Mike. wrote: > > > On 5/31/2013 at 10:23 PM Jim Wright wrote: > > |On May 31, 2013, at 3:56 PM, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) > wrote: | |> After the confusion that Postfix 2.10 is not Postfix > 2.1, maybe it is |time to change the release numbering scheme. | > |If they can't figure it out, they shouldn't be running a mail > server. |There is nothing wrong with the version numbering. > ============= > > I cannot disagree with the former. > Once upon a time, possibly in another galaxy, it would have been 2.01 rather than 2.1. I'm not advocating one way or the other on this, but I would be a little slower to declare that "if they can't figure it out, they shouldn't be running a mail server."
- -- David Benfell / benf...@parts-unknown.org Please see https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 for GnuPG information (or the attachment you don't understand) - -- David Benfell / benf...@parts-unknown.org Please see https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 for GnuPG information (or the attachment you don't understand) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRqXKlAAoJELJhbl/uPb4SQyYP/2FDNh/5TKrEjq1rt7nG4mqL FvKSOTaESI/yoGTkMnQlyWgVkmhSpH4wHQw/JkWkD0mtY0V45S6JmbrHjd04vU3J lyBWpmCQ+dkpIXzAJG7YBUj+gOFiTbs9OYOTTbAWqVh2rGXGAjQlK0RI6vlh8U0V YDaiu524TvG7Gb0RaX/z6F+y986SZdafgErDVC/uhVVZW0bE8eaSCzUn4jWKHuR6 bBGq9KO9lexFxdPdYzylTeqqdfuXzrA+RcxVlWwzBYjVScuF0mfmnNpYRCksj5Bs IpGRdrH13YXLZM6I7d7h0Zsg1cW7qU1mfCnbsP+ymwJsdYC/+GcpBnAQmk0RM5FJ 92kIouUBqWRcncCCysa9J7BA8MiJ9ZBmmg3SnNWUzYP5DOJ9KDuO2dmtXQWds1VY BAe4oQ9sIEyCVRcLtuSsqhF5IQsFx+3eY7pnWUJp/1Uc3q+OMKM7tiPDDPycmew+ y7zsxFcXmt+8y6mkvHNqLDV/xxTcbPmMglqxdfEhrLq5eg58PL6+S2CyNfusbQkx ep8O8Kx2Tee9GD9e6f8MU5qD8q+bjQAECUHyVNQJnzFKX8ekoFmKhURwTkcjRy/Y R6QHbXwx5uHJsYhmUGCbzNMscPTOBYql2TpOc/3DHYsifs+PCQ8LeB/bEfbIUVgz 4E5QiLdH5RgcuU7mHE2M =wWs2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
