Hi Olin.

I just don't understand this...

you admit your mail system (which includes your POP3 server) is 
deficient in that it truncates at 256 characters, yet, "it works fine 
for what you want it to do"...

fine.

But, when someone else points out the deficiency you claim it would 
require "additional work to find, install, learn and get used to. Ain't 
gonna happen, especially since there is no problem to solve."

The paradox is that you are on the other end of this situation so often....

absolute vs relocatable code, banksels vs. bsf/bcf, and so on and so 
on.....

People do things differently, but, 'some' would suggest that you were 
'stupid' or 'lazy' for not doing things the 'right' way.

Why is it that you can't see the irony in all this....? Fascinating.

I am going to bookmark this mail of yours because it is a perfect 
quotable response for the next time I do things different to you:

> It works fine for what I want it to do.  Anything else
> would require additional work on my end to find, install, learn, and get
> used to.  Ain't gonna happen, especially since there is no problem to solve.


Rolf



Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>   
>> There's pretty much nothing
>> that prevents anybody from using effectively a mailer that doesn't
>> break the rules.
>>     
>
> Or course there is.  I am writing this in Microsoft Outlook Express on a
> Windows 2000 system.  It works fine for what I want it to do.  Anything else
> would require additional work on my end to find, install, learn, and get
> used to.  Ain't gonna happen, especially since there is no problem to solve.
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
>   


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist