Hans-Peter Jansen writes: > > I'm willing to bet it will converge to "robust in practice" much > > faster than the previous design did. > > I will take your word on that.
Why take my word when you can take my money instead? :-) Keep on with the porting project! > > Patience and understanding of how opensource software development > > works, perhaps. > > Okay, as already said, I'm sorry for sounding overly harsh. Yeah, me, too. I actually saw Barry's and David's posts while composing and decided I didn't have much to add after all, but apparently I managed to send without noticing (bad Emacs! bad Emacs!) before deleting the draft. Sorry about that; you didn't deserve multiple reprimands. > Usually, when I report such problems nowadays, I add a patch > proposal for fixing the issue, but these issues were overwhelming > me. Needless to mention the complexity of the email package itself > and my reluctance of studying RFCs. The email RFCs are probably not worth studying. They're not only quite complex, on many points they are controversial. Leave that to us. ;-) Merely identifying problems (thanks for the test cases, by the way!) is a great contribution. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
