Subject: Re: spamd (was Re: CVS commit: src/etc)
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jim Wise <email@example.com>
Date: 04/11/2005 11:03:52
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> I have a real problem with it -- it should not be $PATH-dependent
>> whether typing `spamd' starts the daemon which could be necessary to
>> mail delivery or some other barely-spam-related daemon.
>well, does your PATH include /usr/libexec?
>is it a common usage?
Look, I know you're interested in winning the argument at this point,
but are you _really_ arguing that it's _good_ practice to have two
different binaries with the same name but completely different functions
on the system?
I mean that doesn't even pass the laugh test -- just look at all the
confusion the difference between banner(1) and banner(6) have caused
over the years, and those aren't even programs people use almost any of
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----