🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <t96RMEBh6lv4Ew3R@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk>, John Underwood
<john@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> writes

>Most of the discussion in this thread has centred around whether Demon
>would support Win2k and has given me the impression that it was right to
>expect them to provide support for ip, and for Win2k aspects of that,
>but support for any version of Windows is something you should seek from
>its suppliers.
>

>If you wanted to know about Turnpike's support, that would have been
>another matter. I don't think it is a matter of pedantry to understand
>the question "What are Demon's plans to support Windows 2000?" as
>referring to Demon, and not Turnpike. You didn't specifically ask that,
I accept your point.  The problem was such that not only was W2K
behaving properly in every other way I was using it, but I was also able
to collect email from other sources. It was demon email service alone
(on W2K) which was not functioning as expected.  Given those symptoms I
don't believe it was unreasonable to start by asking questions of demon.
Not only that, I had an occasion (if you read the root of the thread
tree) where Web email from demon failed - which confused matters
somewhat.  So to be honest I was unsure whether this was a W2K fault at
all at hat time (why would it be if other email collection was working)
a Turnpike fault or a Demon fault.  It was only by asking the question
in the ng that we now have the benefit of hindsight. It was certainly
not clear to me that it was a W2k issue at that time.

>but the question you did ask raised a problem which had nothing
>whatsoever to do with Turnpike and required support in installing and
>configuring Windows. 
Good old 40-40 hindsight eh.  Are you discussing what we know now or
what was the basis for the original post.


-- 
Mart Rogers