Re: RFS(2): autoreply - A safe, rate-limited auto-responder
In article <41FEB096.3040504@debian.org> lwall@debian.org writes:
>Blars Blarson wrote, On 01/31/2005 06:40 PM:
>
>> [...]
>> In other words, this looks like yet another vaction clone by someone who
>> didn't bother to read the vacation man page. At least it sound like it
>> might not be another bad clone of vacation.
>
>Does this mean you oppose to the inclusion of autoreply in the Debian
>archive?
I havn't looked at it enough to make that determination. It may have
other features that make it useful, or may just be overall better.
I do think that it should be objectivly compared with vacation before
Debian decides to add it to to their archives.
At least this sounds like it won't be one of the poorly done vacation
clones that does mailbombs.
--
Blars Blarson blarson@blars.org
http://www.blars.org/blars.html
With Microsoft, failure is not an option. It is a standard feature.
Reply to: