On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 18:51:41 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 01:41:59AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 18:29:10 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> >A few messages back you said that you found qpopper unacceptable because
>> >the POP send is buggy, so you preferred cucipop. Now you say cucipop
>> >doesn't even have POP send. Am I missing something here?
>> Yes. You must read the *WHOLE* message and try to comprehend it.
>You're not here to make friends, are you, Steve?
With people who question my position when it was clearly stated in at
least three messages in the same thread? No. I think that is insulting.
>It is probably a simple oversight.
So simple it should not have been there in the first place.
>Had you reported it, it could no doubt be fixed easily (Miquel has >indicated
>that he has already fixed some things as necessary).
And as stated, it was not something I was concerned with doing nor was it
during my time with Debian so what Miquel could do or could not do is
irrelevant.
>I don't think a simple bug such as this is sufficient to comment on the
>>quality of the entire program.
I do when it comes to one of the basic functions of the program that
should have been checked at least half a dozen times before it was first
introduced into "stable" code.
--
Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my
http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus | employer's. They hired me for my
ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
