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

List:       tmda-workers
Subject:    RE: New keyword system issues
From:       Ron Bickers <rbickers-expires-1024702969.1ce439 () logicetc ! com>
Date:       2002-06-14 23:42:48
[Download RAW message or body]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tmda-workers-admin@libertine.org
> [mailto:tmda-workers-admin@libertine.org]On Behalf Of Jason R. Mastaler

> > This does, however, mean that the ability to specify multiple tags
> > is nothing more than a backward compatibility feature in case you
> > decide to start using a different one.  True?
>
> Not quite.  It also means you can use multiple extensions for each
> type of tagged address, and TMDA will accept them all.  As we saw in
> Mate's post to -users today, not everyone is satisfied with the
> defaults.

When you say multiple extensions, you mean multiple tags that identify the
type of address? What good is this unless you're going to manually change
the tag each time you generate an address, since TMDA will only ever
generate an address using the first one?  Other than backward compatibility
for existing addresses that may have already been used, how is this better
than just specifying a single different value for the tag than the single
default value?

Mate's post was for an "alternative", not an additional confirm tag.
Configured as such, TMDA would no longer use the .qmail-confirm and use the
other one instead.

I'm not suggesting that the current system is flawed, just trying to
clarify.  The ability to specify a *different* tag is very useful.  I'm just
suggesting that the ability to specify *multiple* tags has the limited use
of supporting pre-existing addresses.

Am I missing something?

_______________________

Ron Bickers
Logic Etc, Inc.
______________________________________________________
tmda-workers mailing list (tmda-workers@libertine.org)
http://libertine.org/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers

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