tobold.org

correct • elegant • free

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ History and Risks of .forward

Sendmail or qmail? ▻

Comments on qmail?

In article <7c9cuv$58u$1@twwells.com>,
T. William Wells <bill@twwells.com> wrote:
>I explicitly stated that my opinion was based on lack of further
>information,

You said "At the time I examined qmail (and I have no reason to believe
this has changed)...".

You now claim that you meant "...(and I have no idea whether this has
changed)".

The difference is subtle, but clear to a native speaker of English.

>It is for such behavior as this latest example that you are known
>to be a verbal abuser.

I thought it was rather mild, actually.  I agree that Dan's aggressive
style often obscures his point, but in this case you publicly slandered
his software for a fault which was remedied in early beta versions.  How
would *you* feel?

Tim.
--
Tim Goodwin       | "The FSF likes to write programs that require twice as much
Univ of Leicester | memory as your machine has today :-) ." -- Steve Summit

Original headers:

From: tjg@ltpcg.star.le.ac.uk (Tim J Goodwin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Comments on qmail?
Date: 12 Mar 1999 13:08:57 -0000
Organization: University of Leicester, UK
Message-ID: <7cb3l9$d9e$1@ltpcg.star.le.ac.uk>
References: <36e448af.0@news.mho.net> <7c580r$ib1$1@twwells.com>
  <1999Mar1118.04.50.28992@koobera.math.uic.edu> <7c9cuv$58u$1@twwells.com>

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ History and Risks of .forward

Sendmail or qmail? ▻