From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 18 20:13:25 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDA316A46B for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:13:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from personrp@ccbh.com) Received: from 1upmc-msx-pp1.upmc.edu (1upmc-msx-pp4.upmc.edu [128.147.16.142]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECEA13C4FA for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:13:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from personrp@ccbh.com) Received: from 1upmc-msximc1.isdip.upmc.edu (1upmc-msximc1.isdip.upmc.edu [128.147.18.39]) by 1upmc-msx-pp4.upmc.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lBIJfgH9004840; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:41:42 -0500 Received: from 1upmc-msx6.acct.upmchs.net ([128.147.16.61]) by 1upmc-msximc1.isdip.upmc.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:41:42 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:41:40 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <340a29540712181051y655dc4fet230f821edeb53057@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use Thread-Index: AchBqpBQUWAPcUCzRsaMOu+Qs3NR+QAANOfg From: "Person, Roderick" To: "Andrew Falanga" , "Ted Mittelstaedt" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2007 19:41:42.0370 (UTC) FILETIME=[03C95420:01C841AE] Cc: des@des.no, Rob , FreeBSD Chat Subject: RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:13:25 -0000 I have been following this thread and I have to agree with Ted for reason that have always stuck with me about all the suits against Microsoft. 1) Earlier in the thread Ted talked about how Microsoft could issue patches that would disable third party software access to root key. Then someone responded and said that Microsoft would not do something like that because of the problems it would cause Microsoft. This brings to mind what Microsoft did to DR-DOS. Doesn't anyone remember this? If not, Microsoft placed code in it's software that cause the software not to work on DR-DOS although DR-DOS was fully compatible with MS-DOS. This destroyed DR-DOS and drove it out of the marketplace. 2) Microsoft's license with hardware vendor was (and I don't know if this has changed at all) that the vendor had to pay Microsoft a flat fee for every machine sold even if the machine did not include Windows. Otherwise they could not sell any machines with Windows pre-installed. These are 2 things that always struck me as far worse then bundling IE with the OS, but for some reason things like that aren't talked about much. And lately it seems to me that finding exactly what exactly the patches that come out on patch Tuesday actually do is darn near impossible - other than the vague description given by Microsoft. These are just some things that I've never liked, but then again I thought OJ was guilty too. Rod Person Programmer http://www.ccbh.com "Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinion, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." --Oscar Wilde=20