David Benfell writes: > I keep hearing rumblings about how Dan plays fast and loose with the > RFCs in qmail and his other programs. Mud-slinging 101: Claim that the program won't work for most people. Claim that it's a research prototype not meant for serious use. Claim that nobody uses the program. Don't worry about the truth. These claims are effective as long as the program is not perceived as being popular. Readers using the program will know that you're lying, but they aren't your target audience. Mud-slinging 102: Claim that, while the program seems to work, it is a disaster waiting to happen. Claim that it has interoperability problems. Claim that it violates RFCs. Don't worry about the truth. These claims remain fairly effective even after the program is perceived as being popular. Members of your target audience won't have any reason to think that you're lying: they haven't read the RFCs, and they aren't familiar with the tiny protocol details that affect interoperability. > Robert Banz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) says, "the author [DJB] has been > known to 'scoff' at the thought of RFC compliance (from Lisa '98)" I wasn't at LISA '98. > Michael H. Warfield See http://cr.yp.to/qmail/warfield.html. ---Dan
