In message <3jdmll1j7pzj...@spike.porcupine.org>, wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
>Ronald F. Guilmette: >> I'm asking you to explain your documentation, and specifically why >> you have a different understanding of the word "use" that the vast > >See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client-server_model for "how a >client can use [a] server's resources". That is a direct quote. Just repeating yourself doesn't add either any additional weight nor any additional credibility to your argument. I know what a client is. I know what a server is. I have written both kinds of software, from scratch, in C (and other languages) multiple times. If you are attempting to make the point that SMTPD_POLICY_README is 100% crystal clear, either to everybody in the known universe, or even just to a majority of those fluent in English language, then attempting to dismiss or minimize my experience or knowledge does not make that point for you. As someone who has worked for a long while with SMTP, you of all people should know that communication is a two way street, requiring common understanding between sender and receiver. You should know also that documentation... English language documentation... is an attempt to communicate... in English. If you are using a different dictionary than everybody else you will fail at that attempt, and in that case why bother writing ``documentation'' at all? No one sensible would dispute your skill as a software developer, but I'll put my own understanding of the English language up against your's, in a fair fight, with neutral judges, any day of the week and twice on Sunday. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/use If you write sentences that can be (and have been) misconstrued, then yes, you can always blame the reader(s). That's the easy way out.
