[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#3253: Pine base64 bug

> > > > No, I'm saying that pine is no more broken than non-MIME
> > > > mailers.
> > >
> > > Que? Non-MIME mailers don't uselessly over-encode plain text
> > > files.
> >
> > Non-MIME mailers don't add "attachments".
> So?  How does that make uselessly over-encoding a plain text file
> right?

It makes in unnecessary.  It doesn't make it _wrong_.

> > If it were a bug, I'd agree with you.  Since it's not (it behaves
> > exactly as documented), we don't _have_ to track it.
> I can't believe you are seriously trying to claim that anything
> documented is not a bug, I refer you once again to the hypothetical
> example of a documented alias ls='rm -fr', is that not a bug?

I believe that you'll find the documentation of 'ls' to be a little
different that what you'd like to do.  I suppose you'll claim that you
could just rewrite the 'ls' man page, but 'ls' is documented a little
more completely than that.

A documented unintended behavior is a bug.  Documented intended behavior
is not, regardless of whether the behavior is what you personally would
like or not.

                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

           According to my calculations, that problem doesn't exist.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: