[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mutt-dev
Subject:    Re: The future of mutt...
From:       Derek Martin <invalid () pizzashack ! org>
Date:       2013-10-07 22:22:24
Message-ID: 20131007222224.GY13440 () dragontoe ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:56:13AM +0300, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 02:19:11PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > I'm not going to imagine that because it's a requirement of
> > TCP/IP.  All machines have a hostname.
> 
> In my opinion `hostname` in the kernel is just a hint. 

Well, I mean seriously, if you're going to tell me that a required
part of configuring networking is just a "hint" then I thank you for
giving me what I need to excuse myself from this conversation.
It is non-negotiable that all machines configured for TCP/IP
networking require a hostname, and that that hostname must resolve to
a valid IP on that machine.  A machine not configured thusly does not
have a valid TCP/IP configuration, and as such it is outside the scope 
of what Mutt should consider.  Your position is essentially that it's
better for Mutt to get it wrong sometimes when the config is 100%
correct, in order to be able to sometimes deal with a configuration
that's absolutely broken, than it is to always get it right when the
configuration is correct.  That's insane.

We're done here.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.


[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]