Hi,
I haven't been following the whole saga from the very start, so I won't
claim to know absolutely everything... but it sounds like you just got
screwed, plain and simple.
I know someone else (I won't mention the name unless he wants me to) that
has tried to submit patches and improvements, but no one listens. I know
this guy's improvements and they really do help things, but why no one is
co-operating with him, I do not know. The guy works with one of the
largest Linux Distributions, so it is definately quality work.
Anyway... maybe someone over at inter7 or something could explain why they
choose to ignore all the developers out there trying to help and improve
the products?
Sincerely,
Jason
----- Original Message -----
From: "Krzysztof Dabrowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: dbfunctions - it's over
>
> > >
> > > a) command's calling from database (emulation of calling stuff from
> >dot-qmail)
> >
> >This can be done in the recent development version of vpopmail.
> >
> > > b) multiple aliases per account (simple small mailing lists without
ezmlm)
> >
> >This can be done in the recent development version of vpopmail.
> >
> > > c) pass-through aliases/forwards (store mail on aliased account AND
copy
> > > to to the underlying account TOO).
> >
> >This can be done in the recent development version of vpopmail.
>
> I see. And the only change log line about calling programs out of alias
> looks like this:
>
> "Sending the email into a program isn't completed yet." :)
>
> Never mind. As i said, i do not want to convince you to anything. I have
> already GAVE UP - so do not try to convince me.
>
> >Again tell me why your patch needs to be added to vpopmail?
>
> I wont repeat myself. I've spent more than half a year wating for Ken
just
> to find out that my effort is wasted.
> Betatesters' effort was wasted. And all without a single trace of open
> discussion. Please do not bring it again, i do not want to discuss the
> political side of story again and again.
>
>
