🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tuesday, in article <833290261snz@smof.demon.co.uk>
     tim@smof.demon.co.uk "Tim Illingworth" wrote:

TI> In article <833274782snz@microvst.demon.co.uk>
TI>            tgold@microvst.demon.co.uk "Anthony R. Gold" writes:
TI> 
TI> >
TI> >Would it be possible to have KA9Q support a reply of a standard file
TI> >when someone emails to info@host.demon.co.uk?  This would be very useful 
TI> >
TI> 
TI> If you want to, you can do this now with the autoresponder included
TI> in SmofList.

I've not looked at SmofList, but I imagine it runs offline,
not while ka9q is running.

Surely the advantage of Anthony's proposal is that the responses
would go out much faster (unless you redial frequently) and
your phone bill would be lower.  Sounds a nice idea to me
(subject to the usual constraints of being implemented
in zero memory and with no overhead, of course).

  >New version out RSN (just the docs to do). Shareware,
TI> UKL20.

And it would be cheaper too.  ;-)

Actually, if it's not off-topic here, would you be prepared
to discuss the pro's and con's of writing shareware, Tim?
(After all, it is a development issue, in a way).  I tried
it, a while back, and got rather cheesed off with it.

I think the final straw for me was when an Australian
registered, I sent him the manual, and afterwards he
wrote to say that he'd signed up 3 of his mates, xeroxed
my manual for them as well, and here was a fiver which
he calculated was an appropriate recompense for me after
deducting his photocopying costs and the postage I would
have incurred.  Not even a "would it be alright if..".

--
John Washington