Tryign to send mail via a python script by using the local MTA

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 16-09-13 10:48, Chris Angelico schreef:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Antoon Pardon
> <antoon.pardon at rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>> Op 16-09-13 10:19, Chris Angelico schreef:
>>> It's a contribution that SAYS that it looks carelessly written. I
>>> think most people here are intelligent enough to know that that's
>>> different from actual carelessness.
>>
>> The question is, should they care about that difference. The end
>> result is a contribution that is just as hard to read.
> 
> Is it, really? I throw the question open: Is it really just as
> difficult to read a deliberately-pointed-out sloppiness as an actual
> one? And is it as much of a problem to the list?

Do you think "improt" is easier to read when written so deliberatly
instead of out of carelessness?

>>> In a debate, you make points and counterpoints. In most debates, you
>>> also gain (or lose) "points for style". Steven scored plenty of the
>>> latter IMO.
>>
>> And why should we accept you as the arbiter for this?
> 
> "We" shouldn't. Style points are per-listener. In my eyes he did well.
> You may well disagree.

Why do you keep introducing your personal appreciations while at the
same time you admit they don't carry much weight.

>>> You're here making a straw-man and a false dichotomy; I
>>> believe that "making a point" is sufficient justification for what
>>> Steven and I did, but I don't think it justifies "any kind of means".
>>
>> Then your argument was incomplete, because it just mentioned making
>> a point as if that in itself was sufficient.
> 
> Context. Context. Context. Sufficient justification for what it was
> used for. You do not seriously believe that that needs to be spelled
> out?

Your context adds nothing. The only thing that the context would add,
is that in this specific case you think that the end justifies the means
but it doesn't explain in any way on what grounds you think so. Those
that took Nikos to task earlier for his behaviour probably though their
end justified the means too.

So yes, if you don't want to give the impression that you are simply
ad hoccing what you personnally don't have a problem with, you'd
better spell a few things out.

>>> I would not, for instance, destroy Nikos's server, data, or access to
>>> either, to make a point; and history will confirm this.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
> 
> No? He gave me his root password - check the list archives. I did none
> of the above three destructive actions (nor any other destructive
> action), even though it would have made my point much stronger to do
> so.

You behaved in a way some people clearly thought of a questionable. So
for those people you have established you are prepared to exhibit
questionable behaviour to make your point. So I think there are a
number of people who will think of you as not trustable enough to
withhold the behaviour in question here, when you think it would be
necessary to make your point.

-- 
Antoon Pardon