Re: packaging pine
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > system before calling the pine binary could work. But whether this
> > stuff would make sense??
> It would be a very ugly hack.
For sure. I hoped everybody would see it ...
> > I think mailbombing the authors of pine to change their crappy license
> > would be an even better idea - but I'm afraid people did so in the
> > past and there seem to be stubborn people at the University of Washington.
> Any type of mailbombing is always a bad idea.
That's way I said *even* this would be a better idea.
Please read my former posting:
- There might be perhaps a very very ugly workaround.
- If every pine user who is bothered by the current situation would
write a kind and friendly e-mail to the authors in which he would
describe his problems using pine in his own words and that he
thinks about switching to mutt every time he is facd to this problems
they might be think about this stupid license.
(Well, I've thought that every user on this list knows that mailbombing
is a bad idea and I wanted to find an abbreviation for what I wrote here.)