From: David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Most of the points were matters of personal opinion, or were true, or
>were not too important. In this particular case, however, you are
>accusing some of the most valuable contributors to the list of bad
>faith, and misrepresenting their actions. I consider that pretty
>important, and needing a response. It's also an area where it's best
>for people *not* to try to defend themselves generally; that always
>looks self-interested. So that's what I commented on.
No, I wasn't accusing the most valuable contributors, but the most
remarkable non-contributors.
Ok, I'll rephrase my point:
4) Badly disguised manouvers by _some pseudo-gurus_ to create a qmail
maintaners guild or two, that
as all guilds profits from the seclusion of knowledge. Next stop is qmail
certification, I bet, and then "redhatification".
Now, would you be so kind as point which of my 5 points are personal
opinion, true or not too important?
I'm sure you'll agree the "true" points should be addressed by the .. huh
... powers that be.
Armando
