Article View: comp.mail.elm
Article #3535Re: reliability of 2.4-pl17
From: david.j.heiland
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:07
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:07
11 lines
853 bytes
853 bytes
From article <1js0s6INNid@dsinc.dsi.com>, by syd@dsi.com (Syd Weinstein): > I am not happy with pl17 or pl20, pl21 probably won't be much > better due to the large amount of cleanup work in it. However, > pl22 should be pretty stable. (Actually PL21 is pretty stable, > but who knows what we broke)... Exactly how do you mean this? We're running ELM 2.4 pl17 and I'm wondering if we should worry, and what we should worry about, until pl22 is out. -- Dave Heiland djh@neptune.att.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan25.200723.25090@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsm!heilandReferences:
<1js0s6INNid@dsinc.dsi.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsm!heiland From: heiland@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (david.j.heiland) Subject: Re: reliability of 2.4-pl17 Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:07:23 GMT Message-ID: <1993Jan25.200723.25090@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> References: <1js0s6INNid@dsinc.dsi.com> Lines: 11