Re: RFS(2): autoreply - A safe, rate-limited auto-responder
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: RFS(2): autoreply - A safe, rate-limited auto-responder
- From: Florent Rougon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:17:50 +0100
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- Mail-followup-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20050131225040.GQ4329@xieana.donarmstrong.org> (Don Armstrong's message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:50:40 -0800")
- References: <200501312140.j0VLer52021964@renig.nat.blars.org> <email@example.com> <20050131225040.GQ4329@xieana.donarmstrong.org>
Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The author(s) can spend free time in any way the author(s) wish to.
I'm glad to learn that.
> Likewise, Blars and myself are free to tell authors that what they
> have written appears to be a waste of their time when Free alternative
> "foo" exists. Just like you are free to tell me that responding to
> your message is a waste of my time, and others can tell us that
> reading this thread is a waste of their time.
I was reacting to the "yet another vaction clone by someone who didn't
bother to read the vacation man page" part of Blars' message, which
seems to be overly harsh (and maybe untrue) if it is only meant to say
"a free program with mostly the same features already exists".
> Furthermore, the message above isn't written in the context of telling
> the authors that they should never have written said software, only
> that said software should probably not be included in the archive
> because other tools already frobnicate better (or as well.)
I don't think this was the only message carried by Blars' words, but I
may have misunderstood him...