On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:10:19AM +0000, Martyn J. Pearce wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:45:28AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > But I also find MIME::Lite to be a horrible name. It certainly > > doesn't present the module as a choice when you go through the > > obvious keywords looking for modules for sending mail. > > > > Of course, at this point, "MIME::Lite" is so well established a > > name a change is probably going to be more than difficult. I > > still think it's feasible though, so as the distribution under > > the new name includes a stub MIME/Lite.pm that just loads the > > name module. It's never too late to undo mistakes. (Assuming, of > > course, that people feel the way I do about the module's name.) > > This person does, in spades. If I ever searched for mail box handling (and I > have), I never looked twice at MIME::Lite, because I figured from the name > that it is for MIME-encoded messages, and got attached to the search results > because it mentioned mail as a likely client.
I think MIME::Lite isn't in the Module List so the name wasn't "peer-reviewed". The peer-review process offered by [EMAIL PROTECTED] certainly isn't perfect, but I do believe it's very valuable. Tim.
