From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 31 21:07:27 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA16454 for current-outgoing; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 21:07:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA16445 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 21:07:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.2/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id FAA04570; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 05:06:29 GMT Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:06:29 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Mark Crispin cc: Terry Lambert , current@FreeBSD.ORG, scrappy@ki.net Subject: Re: /var/mail (was: re: Help, permission problems...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Mark Crispin wrote: > 99% is conservative. FreeBSD is much less than 1% of the UNIX market. > > Give me one good reason why I should let 1% of the market tell me that I > should do something that puts 99% of the market at risk. Will you accept patches from us for a FreeBSD specific port? The spirit of the README files seem to indicate that you will. Otherwise, it gives us unnecessary work in to keeping imap up to date in the FreeBSD ports collection. Bear in mind that when things go into the FreeBSD ports collection, the FreeBSD lists bear a lot of the support liability thus reducing your load. Regards, Mike Hancock