Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:50:26 GMT From: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/71529: (Strongly!) suggested change to listed address for postmaster@ Message-ID: <200409101350.i8ADoQY6071704@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR docs/71529; it has been noted by GNATS. From: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org> To: david@catwhisker.org, roam@ringlet.net Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, jmb@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/71529: (Strongly!) suggested change to listed address for postmaster@ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:46:35 -0700 (PDT) >Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:00:44 +0300 >From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> >To: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org> >Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, jmb@FreeBSD.org >Subject: Re: docs/71529: (Strongly!) suggested change to listed address for postmaster@ >On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:32:29AM -0700, David Wolfskill wrote: [PR about postmaster@FreeBSD.org email address documentation] >What do you think about the following three patches? You can see them >and the resulting versions of the Contributors article at >http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/pm/ My current favorite is the 2nd -- the one with the "Postmaster Team Prologue". It's clear and unambiguous; it's easily changed as the membership of the team changes. In the first patch, I think I'd be slightly more inclined to use "Each is reachable" vs. "Both are reachable" (in case something based on the first patch is finally selected). But then, if jmb decides to not be listed, that makes things awkward: one doesn't write "each" to refer to the only element of a set or member of a team. And "both" only works as long as there are precisely 2 members of the team. The 3rd patch doesn't strike me as being easily adapted to changes in the size of the team. >Any other suggestions on wording this are welcome :) :-) Just recall Victor Borge's line (referring to the English language): "It's *your* language; I'm just trying to *use* it!" >If you think this sentence is confusing, then change one pig. :-) I recall reading that line in one of Hofstadter's columns -- I think it was in his "Metamagical Themas" column in Scientific American (successor column to Martin Gardner's "Mathematical Games". Thanks! Peace, david -- David H. Wolfskill david@catwhisker.org Evidence of curmudgeonliness: becoming irritated with the usage of the word "speed" in contexts referring to quantification of network performance, as opposed to "bandwidth" or "latency."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200409101350.i8ADoQY6071704>