ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (09/16/90)
In article <74@raysnec.UUCP> shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes: [ David Herron wrote: ] > >-- There is a generally low opinion of MMDF which, as far as I can tell, > > derives from Olden Days when MMDF was truly buggy. Nowadays it is very > > unbuggy, except in the documentation which is a bit lacking (sigh) .. > Tell us another one, David! (Nothing personal... David *did* try to help > solve *our* problem.) The "officially supported" MMDF II found in SCO UNIX > (we have ODT 1.0) on our system remains truly unreliable. Yup, it's certainly not David's fault -- I think he's even given SCO free help -- the world needs more DSHs, but then this *is* the first time SCO have done anything with MMDF, and I would argue that when they get it right, it will prove to have been the right choice. And this brings up another point, The shipping of MMDF by a major vendor like SCO is one other reason to draw the MMDF discussion on USENET together, especially since anyone who tries to muck with SCO's mailers may well get bitten by their nasty so-called "security" <expletive deleted> and would be well advised to stick with MMDF for that reason. Mail suppliers like Ray, of course are free to do whatthey like, but we aren't all in that business! My suggestion for an MMDF group has met with some positive and no negative response, so I'll probably send out an official CALL FOR DISCUSSION sometime in the next wek or two -- I need a few days to read the official guidelines first :-) Any mail on that issue will be very welcome, whether +ve or -ve. -- my .signature is on holiday