* Mark Overmeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-29 02:12]:
But of course, he feels the need to insult other people's work
to promote his own. It's his way of gaining importance.
I don't think he's insulting in order to promote so much as
simply being vocal about his dissatisfaction with existing
Sorry, I'm not on the list, but got this passed on...
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:49:29 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: New module Mail::SendEasy
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yves Orton) writes:
Besides this is there really any reason for yet another
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Terrence Brannon wrote:
- it seems that instead of volunteers to ease the burden of your API
usage/docs, people are trying to pull the rug out from under you by
populating the Email::* hierarchy... oh well.
I hope you're not including me here. My comments were intended
Mark Overmeer wrote:
Mail::Box was designed to start with EVERYTHING which the RFCs specify,
and ALL uses I know with e-mail. A very high level library. And that's
quite a lot... And therefore suffers all the same problems as other
large modules (like Tk) have: they are hard to understand when
At 02:12 -0600 1/28/04, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Terrence Brannon wrote:
I also tend to agree with him that Mail::Box is a bit over-engineered in
the OO department. Do you _really_ need _eleven_ classes for
Mail::Message::Field, which in turn are presumably used by the _nine_
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
At 02:12 -0600 1/28/04, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Terrence Brannon wrote:
I also tend to agree with him that Mail::Box is a bit over-engineered in
the OO department. Do you _really_ need _eleven_ classes for
Mark Overmeer wrote:
OTOH, it _does_ do basically everything you'd ever want for mail
handling/sending, and if you want to do something complex, it'll do that
that.
That is one of the differences in concept. I prefer libraries to provide
a high
