Martin Volesky wrote:
>
> On 07/12/00 at 12:32 AM Ken Jones wrote:
>
> >Martin Volesky wrote:
> >>
> >> Ken, I agree with you that the qmail delivery process is possibly more efficient.
>However, when talking to large mail hubs that
> >> use any type of connection queing/throtling mechanisms, the qmail method may run
>into problems.
> >
> >Martin,
> >
> >I understand your problem. However, you do not have any proof.
> >Please provide proof of your imagined "problem" so that real
> >people can design fixes to your "problem".
> >
> >Without real proof and measured performance, your supositions
> >are just fancifal abstractions. And have no real persumption
> >to reality.
>
> I agree with you on the presumption point Ken. And further agree that numbers are
>always nice.
Nice? Nice? why do you disrespect the only reason behind what acatually
matters.
You think numbers are nice? and then... after you dismiss them as nice
you
can now blindly go beyond measurements.
What false world are you liveing in?
You astound me sir.
>What I
> was trying to do is stimulate a discussion about an abstract point and had nothing
>to do with factual
> matters. My wording definately reflects this. Discussion leads to a creative process
>called brainstorming
> which in turn leads to though out development - a cruscial aspect of programming you
>will agree...
If you want to stimumate a disucssion about false reasoning, I think we
did away with your kind in the 1890's.
If you want to stimuate a discussion in the 2000 century, perhaps you
should provide facts behind your "assumptions". How else would a
reasonable
person in our time and age judge this information.
Shall we throw black cats around our heads? Or shall your "simulation"
of discussion cause a false fall back to a lack of reasoning.
Please sir. If you want to present factual information, please do so.
You have already called out a challenge. Please present statistical
information to back up your claim. Otherwise, I hope all good and
wothly people shall judge your false information as a speculation.
And hence, guilty of the worst crime of techinical experience..
And this crime is the crime of false information.
Shall all qmail administrators take your false claim and now waste
hours and hours proving you wrong?
Perhaps you can save us the time, and present real and useful
information to our community,.
Otherwise Sir, I reject you as an abomination, a distraction,
a wayword worthless reject. Please sir. Provide proof for
your clamins.
If you want to consider wild fancial flights of fantasy, that
is your preogative, and we must all suffer your statements for
the good of freedom of speech.
But I think you more worthy than this.
I ask again, one last time. Please present real proof.
Or shall we all go back to burning bushes and howling at the moon, Sir.
Ken Jones
Inter7
