Re: High Rate of ballot rejections this year
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 07:41:04PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Hi,
> > It was suggested that I also post the mailers that were used
> > in successfully sending a ballot to the voting engine, and here are
> > the results. I am attaching both the list of good mailers, as well
> > as the reasons for rejection of the ballot, with the MUA and count.
> > I note that there were tweo succesful votes from people who
> > use Outlook (and no rejections).
> > Mutt still impresses.
> Speaking about Emacsen mailers, there are not enough details because
> Emacsen usually use external packages (gpg.el, mailcrypt) to perform
> encryption and signing.
> You wouldn't conclude that Gnus/Mew/whatever do not it right sometimes,
> it wouldn't make sense.
And then, not all mutt users did the encryption in mutt. I for example
simply did the encryption by hand, and mailed the resulting ballot. I
could as well have used plain mail instead of mutt.