🚀 go-pugleaf

previously Anthony R. Gold <tgold@microvest.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrn68p8lu.d43.robm@desade.noc.demon.net>
>           robm@demon.net "Robert Mortimer" writes:
[snip]
>>  I mainly do DNOS for my own use, but like to make a generically
>> useful compile available, so such information would be of use to me.
>> If this sort of information would be useful to other people as well,
>> and if no one has any objections I'll put together a simple
>> questionaire based on config.h and post it to dispc and
>> demon.ip.developers weekly till the new year /* is that long enough to
>> many posts? */ and then compile the results and post them back here.
>It does sound useful, but your reference to config.h sounds like this 
>survey might only identify components present and maybe not revisions 

Hence the based on, I figured looking at the current available options
and seeing which ones where actually wanted wouldbe a good start, and
possibly give indicators as to what is more in demand.

>that have been made to any of each of these: some nntp's have 
>authentication and some smtp's have esmtp. And then there are 
>additional matters such as command line rescroll and better ppp 
>negotiation as well as bug reductions.
>I would welcome a comprehensive catalogue which revealed all of these 
>aspects for each offering.

That might make for a very long questionaire but I see your point, and
it probably wouldn't be that bad if organised nicely:
POP3
with imap
with md5 login 
etc.

>Might I suggest that, in addition to the compile and link recipe, 
>some space be given to unstructured comments for each nos until such 
>time as a suitable structure can be designed.

Definately, I'd not dream of doing a questionair with out a 
other comments
section.

-- 
RobertM
Demon Internet Ltd
            "Trust the computer the computer is your fiend"