🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9205192021.AA11389@wendy-fate.UU.NET> kyle@wendy-fate.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:

   Kimmo Suominen writes:
    > Thanks to Jamie, I haven't been forwarding junk to people that I know
    > won't do anything with all those Received etc. headers.  If they use a
    > mailer like Elm (and are happy with it), they might not have a handy
    > way of "un-wrapping" the forwarded message, thus unable to hide the
    > junk themselves!  Why tease them?!?!?

   So they can yell at the author of their mail reader and get them
   to add the digest bursting feature!  Let's spread the abuse
   around, eh?  Fair is fair. :-)

They won't know to complain about their mail reader's lack of
undigestification unless VM's forwarded messages are clearly identified as
digests with a "BY THE WAY, THIS IS A DIGEST, YOU CAN BURST IT" note at
the top.  Instead, they'll just think you have a stupid mailer that
doesn't know how to delete ugly header lines.  :-)

In article <KIMMO.SUOMINEN.92May17030428@kannel.lut.fi> Kimmo.Suominen@lut.fi (Kimmo Suominen) writes:

   If I happen to dislike enough any part of any package loaded into my
   Emacs, I can always overload it with something more to my taste.

If I could overload VM code IN A WAY THAT WAS GUARANTEED TO WORK IN EVERY
FUTURE VERSION, FOR EXAMPLE, A HOOK, then sure, that's fine.  After long
and painful experience, mainly with VM but also with other packages, I no
longer believe it is acceptable to simply modify a package so that it
works properly.  Adding a hook to an existing function (via one of the
many different hook-adding packages) is only acceptable if that function
is GUARANTEED to retain the same interface and functionality in future
versions.

In article <FRIEDMAN.92May16213701@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:

      I don't see why mail should come with documentation on how to read it.

How else are people to know that these things they are receiving are
undigestifiable?

In article <9205192022.AA11649@wendy-fate.UU.NET> kyle@wendy-fate.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:

   Is there any acceptable alternative other than total and
   unconditional surrender?

"Acceptable"?  Of course not.  :-)

-- 
Enjoy,

Joe Wells <jbw@cs.bu.edu>

Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details