failure to address objections

["D. J. Bernstein" <djb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> "what you already know is better"

qmail _is_ better.

For example, qmail automatically handles existing usernames containing
the separator character. Newman's proposal doesn't.

This is not a minor issue. This is a fundamental flaw in Newman's
proposal. His insistence on a global syntax means that he cannot handle
existing usernames correctly.

As another example, qmail's default separator, "-", automatically gives
``project'' control over MLM addresses such as ``project-request''.
Newman's proposal doesn't.

Newman hasn't shown any willingness to address these objections---
because addressing them would mean throwing his proposal away. He just
ignores them. That's dishonest.

Similarly, you're pretending that qmail's superiority is merely a matter
of ``what you already know.'' But it's not. Users really do complain
when their mail doesn't get delivered.

> a guideline and recommendation,

Please try to act like an engineer who actually cares about engineering
failures. Why are you recommending Innosoft's inferior technology? 

---Dan
Set up a new mailing list in a single command. http://pobox.com/~djb/ezmlm.html