On Friday, 12/02/2005 at 03:24 EST, Rich Greenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On: Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:56:19PM -0500,Alan Altmark Wrote: > > } The SMTP zaps are "protected modifications" under the Viable Alternatives > > Alan, > Could you please define "protected modifications"? > > Something that you don't officially approve of but will try to avoid > source changes that break it?
"Protected" as in "protected free speech". I don't agree that you *should* do it, but I will argue that you have the "right" to do it without [excessive] finger-wagging by the rest of us since your alternatives are few. We won't take any special action to avoid breaking a local zap; that is, after all, the nature of zaps. For example, we could change the message routines to build the command dynamically rather than using constant strings. On a practical level there isn't much chance we'll do that, of course, so the risk is low and the benefit to you is high. So even though the risk is non-zero, it seems a reasonable business decision to me. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
