As the one who described James as "pretty neat", I think I need to respond:
Yes, it IS neat. But there is now quite a gap between the official released version 2.1.3 and what the developers might consider to be the current release 2.2.0a15/16. I am still evaluating an ISP platform infrastructure and James 2.1.3 is doing well so far ... but, I would like the improvements which are mentioned as being incorporated into V2.2 - such as easier matcher/mailet deployment - and for V2.2.0 final to be released and a line drawn. With the a-count now at 15 or 16, there has to be a lot of improvement and function that's not in 2.1.3. Then the developers can focus on V3 with, in my opinion, far less user pressure than at present. The James Team should, I feel, be encouraged by the user feedback wanting the project to progress and evolve. If it starts to annoy, then throw the sharks a meal in the form of V2.2.0 and we'll be satisfied for a while ... Regards, Roy >-----Original Message----- >From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Versions and Builds > > >> It ALREADY is a pretty neat product. > >I suspect this is the root of the perceived "problem", because there are no >serious defects in James there is little pressure to make a release, nor >for James to undergo major change. >We have got ideas, but there is no urgency about implementing them, we'll >do them all right, and do them right too. But we don't say we'll do them >quickly. ---------------------------------------------------------------- [This message has been routed via James V2.1.3 on REBEX-MERCURY] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
