[Mailman-Users] Re: remove this?

[Chuq Von Rospach]

On 5/9/01 1:33 PM, "Bill Warner" <lww at ictech.net> wrote:

> OTOH, a strident "hack it or take a hike" anti-configuration stance (some
> of the messages in the archive are downright hostile) actually makes it
> harder for me, and others, to migrate towards full 2369 compliance, which
> means it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Why? It creates dialog, which fosters education. If we hadn't had this
discussion, but instead had a configuration option, would you have even
asked or researched? Probably not. By taking a hard line (and yes, sometimes
it's gotten snarky, but usually, someone snarks at the code maintainers
first. Usually...) it forces people to at least listen to the rationale
before making the decision...

> I'll simply hack the 2369
> headers out by the roots and that will be the end of it as far as I'm
> concerned.  And that, I submit, undermines the goal of rapid widespread
> compliance.
> 
> Anyway, <shrug>, that's how the picture looks from where I sit.

Heck, you'd have done that anyway -- but now you know why they're there and
why we want them there, and you're doing it anyway. That's a net positive
towards adoption, because at least you're making an informed (if, IMHO,
wrong) choice. That's better than the option of making it in ignorance.