My comments were not intended to be an insult to anyone, especially Sandy. He is one of the more level headed ones posting to this forum. I took issue with the original author's statements about EULA violation for Win2K Pro and XP and that since Imail is a server it therefore MUST run on a server.
Everybody who reads the EULA can come away with a different opinion. I happen to believe from what I read that it is not a violation of the EULA to run Imail on a Win2K Pro or XP machine. However, M$ has more attorneys than I do and so I err on the side of caution. If my comments are too caustic for this forum I will gladly remove myself. I would rather stay subscribed. Occasionally, I find tidbits of great knowledge intertwined in the masses of posts from people who haven't cracked open the Imail manual to look something up for themselves. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 2:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Win XP > > I have read all the propaganda on here on a number of threads > >If you think that anyone explaining the side of the EULA in an >argument *about* the EULA is pushing, rather than simply revealing, M$ >propaganda, you need to think about why we're on this list instead of >upselling Exchange. I don't think that he really meant "propaganda". I think he's referring to the self-proclaimed experts on this issue, who simply make up misinformation. It's OK for someone to say "I think that MS enforces the 10-connection-limit in Windows NT", but when one person says "They do enforce it in Windows NT" and another says "They do not enforce it in Windows NT", one of them is simply lying and spreading misinformation. Harsh words, yes, but true. I've responded to this (and a couple other heated issues) with a response of "It appears that [insert some statement here] and you should not believe anyone who says otherwise, unless they can show a source for their information". Needless to say, several bozos always respond with "No, that isn't true" but can't back up their claim. I'm happy to hear in response "No, Scott, you're wrong; Microsoft says otherwise (see http://...)" or "I don't think that's true, and here's why I don't think so". Either of those provides useful information, and doesn't spread misinformation, whereas the made-up "No, that isn't true" is not useful, and spreads misinformation. -Scott --- Declude: Anti-virus, Anti-spam and Anti-hijacking solutions for IMail. http://www.declude.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
